1847.] The Use of Moods in dependent Clauses.

73

former is a potential, the latter, a conditional judgment. In modern European languages, for the most part, these words are formed by auxiliaries.

4. The abnormal Use of Moods.

If the theory we have proposed be correct, then, as before intimated, the use of moods in dependent clauses or in such sentences as make no assertion, must be regarded as abnormal and irregular. A dependent clause expresses no judgment but merely a conception. As the proper function of the verb is to express an activity, while the noun is the proper form for the designation of a being or substance, and as we may have a conception of an activity without affirming anything respecting it, it would be easy and natural, to employ the verb in its own proper form, even where there was no judgment but merely a conception of an activity to be expressed. The infinitive is the proper form for this expression of the activity of the verb, viewed merely as such or as a conception. It is, accordingly, in strict propriety to be regarded as the substantive form of the verb, as the participle is the form for the attributive use of the verb.

proper

But, it is obvious, that conceptions of activities may be characterized as to their mode as real, potential, necessary or contingent, as well as judgments. As neither the infinitive nor the participle of itself can express this modality of the conception, resort must be had in language either to periphrastic expressions, as to the use of particles or adverbial clauses, or to a borrowed use of forms originally appropriated to other purposes. Nothing could be more natural than to employ forms which properly denoted modes of judgment, in order to express analogous modes of conceptions. It is in this way, we conceive, that the verb with modal inflections, appears in dependent clauses. It appears in them with these inflections only, as a substitute for the infinitive and participle, combined with such particles or adverbial clauses as might be necessary to express the modality of the conception. As being more brief and therefore possessing more energy, it would readily be used far more frequently than the infinitive or participle, in those languages in which the moods were expressed by mere inflections, or in which the participial forms were defective. Besides, as the representation of a concrete has ever more force in speech than that of a pure abstract, the proper modal forms which always imply a concrete are even preferred to the infinitive or parVOL. IV. No. 13.

ticiple which represent mere abstractions. "The man who loves," every body feels to be more energetic than, "The man loving."

It should be remarked here, that sometimes two distinct assertions are contained in the same period. The illative, causal and some adversative conjunctions, thus, often connect phrases or clauses which are both assertive in their character, and of course admit the mood in its proper function. In all such cases, the mood has its proper significancy, and is used in accordance with the laws that regulate the use of it in all principal sentences. As some of these conjunctions in the Latin language sometimes show a relation between a conception and an assertion or another conception, as well as between proper assertions, the form of the mood will often determine whether the clause is assertive or not.

In all strictly dependent clauses, then, that is, in such as contain no expressed judgment, the modal form of the verb indicates the modality of the conception as real, potential, necessary or contingent. We have thus the general principle for the use of the mood in such clauses. According as the conception of the activi ty expressed in the verb is regarded as real, potential, necessary or contingent, the verb in the given case takes the mood which would properly be employed to express a judgment of that particular character.

In illustrating the application of this principle, it will be convenient to distinguish the various purposes for which the verb may be employed in dependent clauses. There are four very distinct purposes for which the verb is so employed; and these several uses of the verb may be denominated, respectively, the attributive, the substantive, the adverbial and the objective use.

It is to be remarked, generally, that the Latin language, more than most others, inclines to regard mere conceptions as only possible and not as real. The use of the subjunctive in dependent clauses is thus to be regarded as the law in that language, and the use of the indicative the exception. Hence in the oratio obliqua and all similar cases, subordinate clauses depending on other dependent clauses, incline to appear in the subjunctive mood. For all such conceptions are removed farther from the field of reality. When the conception, if entertained by the speaker, might take the indicative, it takes the subjunctive when entertained or supposed to be entertained by others. Here is the explanation of such cases as the following: "mater irata est mihi, quia non redierim domum."-Plautus.

As contrasted with the use of the Greek and English tongues,

1847.] Different Uses of the Verb in dependent Clauses.

75

this principle may be stated thus: The conception of an activity expressed by a verb, is regarded as a potential in Latin, and takes the subjunctive unless a reality is clearly to be implied; in Greek and in English it is regarded as a real and takes the indicative, unless a potential or conditional is to be implied. The German follows nearly the analogy of the Latin.

1. The attributive use of the verb in dependent clauses. In this use of the verb, the indicative generally prevails even in the Latin, for the conception is generally a real one: "Hannibal male fecit, qui Capuae hiemavit." In the following sentence, however, the conception not necessarily being regarded as real, the subjunctive is preferred: "Sunt qui censeant una animum et corpus occidere." In the English language, the indicative is used in such cases, unless necessity, potentiality, or contingency is clearly requisite; as "The Tarquin, who might have retained the consulship, but for the jealousy of a people just tasting their new liberty, was the last," etc.

2. The substantive use. Instead of the noun we often find the conception of an activity expressed in the form of the verb and constituting the subject or predicate of a sentence. The infinitive is the more proper form for this use; but the modal inflections frequently occur, not only because modality can be expressed simply only by these, but, also, because the inflected forms. are more energetic. In this use, the subjunctive is preferred in the Latin, unless the reality of the conception is to be made prominent: "Non est verisimile, ut Chrysogonus horum literas adamarit." Where, however, the verb occurs in a proper case of apposition, we should expect the indicative as in the attributive use of the verb : "Hoc me ipse consolabar, quod non dubitabam."

3. The adverbial use. Here two specific uses of the verb are to be distinguished. The first is where the verb is employed to modify the copula of the principal verb. In this case, the Latin often takes the subjunctive where the Greek has the indicative, as si ri eixouer, édídouer av; si quid habuissemus, dedissemus. Indeed, the Latin always take the subjunctive, unless there is a clear implication of the reality of the conception expressed in the dependent verb. If the indicative occurs, it throws at once an emphasis on the existence of the conception; as "si est ut dicat velle se, redde." Accordingly, where the principal verb is in the future tense, if the condition on which the truth of its assertion depends, can be separated as a preceding event from the activity of the principal verb, the subjunctive is used; if however the con

dition is involved in the main assertion so as to partake of its reality, the indicative is used. Thus, " expectationem facilliere vinces, si hoc statueris," but "nunquam labere, si te audies."

The other adverbial use of the verb in a dependent clause is to modify the activity expressed in the verb. These modifications may be distinguished into those of time, place and manner. In all, however, the indicative or subjunctive is used according as the reality or only the possibility or contingency of the activity expressed by the dependent verb is fully to be implied or not. As, "Dum singuli pugnant, universi vincuntur." "Donec, spectante Vitellio, interfectus est." "Sed arma sumere non ante cuiquam moris quam civitas suffecturum probaverit." In the sentence, "Male fecit Hannibal qui Capuae hiemarit," the subjunctive is used because the fact of Hannibal's having wintered at Capua is intended to be entirely hidden behind the adverbial use of the verb. The expression is equivalent to this: in so far as he wintered at Capua. Where, thus, the mere adverbial use of the verb is intended, the subjunctive is always to be preferred.

4. The objective use of the verb. As the result of an activity is necessarily conceived of as future, the subjunctive mood as the proper expression of possibility and contingency, is employed in denoting the object of the verb. Here the Latin language always carefully distinguishes the objective from the attributive force of the verb. Where the indicative would be employed in the latter case, the subjunctive is found in the former; and the use of the one or the other determines the intention of the writer. As in the sentence, " praemisit in urbem edictum, quo vocabulum Augusti differeret, Caesaris non reciperet," etc., the use of the subjunctive shows that the edict not merely contained the intelligence of the fact that the title of Augustus was spread abroad, but that it was sent for that very purpose. The use of the indicative would intimate nothing as to the intent or object of the edict; but merely that the delay to take the title was incidentally communicated in it.

Sometimes the verb when it is used to modify a noun, or is attributive, yet takes the objective form, and is then put in the subjunctive; as "neque sum in hac opinione, ut credam." The adverbial form, sometimes, cloaks an objective sense, and accordingly takes the subjunctive: "Nam se quoque moveri interim finget, ut pro Rabirio Postumo Cicero, dum aditum sibi ad aures faciat, et auctoritatem induat vera sentientis," etc.; where "dum faciat" is to be rendered "in order to make."

1847.] Consistency of God's Purposes with Man's Agency. 77

The reason for the use of the subjunctive in the objective clause obviously does not exist after verbs of affirming and the like, as Dicam quod sentio. This may, indeed, be regarded as an attributive use of the verb.

The foregoing illustrations will suffice to explain the meaning and application of the principle we have proposed. This is our object in adducing them, and not to extend the induction, so far as might be thought necessary in order to establish, beyond doubt, the correctness of the view we have taken.

ARTICLE IV.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ETERNAL PURPOSES OF GOD WITH THE FREE AGENCY OF MEN.

By Rev. J. W. Ward, Abington, Mass.

ONE of the most plausible objections ever urged against the doctrine of God's eternal purposes, is its alleged inconsistency with man's freedom of action. As this objection is, probably, more frequently advanced and more sensibly felt than any other, it may not be amiss to give it a careful examination. And it may be proper to remark at the outset, that the objection lies with as much force against the government and overruling agency of God, as against the doctrine of his eternal purposes. I would then ask those who object to the doctrine of the divine decrees on the supposed ground, that it is inconsistent with the free agency of man: do you believe that God reigns in the natural and moral world-that he does all his pleasure in the armies of heaven above and among the inhabitants of this lower world? If not, you have dethroned the monarch of the universe. You have taken from him his sceptre and driven him from his kingdom. You are, to all intents and purposes, an atheist. You do not believe in the existence of a perfect moral Governor of the world. And the first question to be discussed with you must be,-not, has God from eternity formed a perfect plan of government? has he foreordained whatsoever comes to pass ?-but, is there a perfect God who reigns on the throne of the universe? But if, on the other hand, you admit this truth, if you admit that God does