The Lucretian Theory of Providence

George Depue Hadzsits
1916 The Classical Weekly  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY we need to keep this point constantly in mind: a knowledge of it will light up e. g. the familiar phrase incumbere (se) remis, 'to fling one's self on the oars'. A knowledge of it, too, makes plain the sense of the formula, Sisto: sto:: cumbo: cubo:: lay: lie. Another line of study is most important-the differentiation of words one from another: e. g. of totus from omnis, of uterque from ambo, of the indefinite pronouns one from the others (aliquis, nescioquis, quidam, quisquam, ullus, quivis, quilibet), etc. Ability to answer these questions will explain, for instance, why the Romans so seldom said sine omni negotio (an early and late Latin phrase not adequately treated in commentaries), but regularly said sine ullo negotio. In the field of syntax I would have the teacher study for his own good, and, to some extent, for use with pupils, even young pupils, the question of origins. Here Professor Bennett's work, The Latin Language, will prove of special service. Why is the subjunctive used in dum, modo, and dummodo clauses of 'proviso'? why is the subjunctive used in quamvis-clauses? Questions addressed to Summer Session classes would seem to show that not every one has reflected on these matters. The study of origins involves, of course, the study of Latin historically: what a flood of light such a way of studying Latin throws for instance on the history of ut-clauses (purpose) with the subjunctive! Who that has studied Plautus rightly will not stop speaking thenceforth of the omission of ut in such and such usages? he will rather feel that it is necessary to account for the presence (the insertion) of ut in divers connections. Professor Bennett's recent volume, The Syntax of Early Latin. Volume II: The Cases (see THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 8.2I3-2I5) challenges received opinions at various points: are we to agree with him that the genitive of verbs is as natural a construction, after all, in Latin, as it is in Greek? Interesting and important, too, is his discussion of the dative in early Latin with similis. A historical study of the Latin Prohibitives is fascinating indeed. Ne haec facias became taboo: yet cave ne haec facias, oro (imploro, obsecro) ne haec facias, which all alike involve an underlying independent ne haec facias, were current in polite society and in formal literary style. Sugar-coating counts in language, as it does in society. Study of word-order is the next theme. Here much reading of Latin aloud-as the Romans themselves read their language-is a most helpful process: indeed, no other can take its place or rival it in effectiveness. Professor Hale's pamphlets, Aims and Methods of Classical Study, and The Art of Reading Latin (Ginn and Company, I887-I888), can never be out of date. Very suggestive, too
doi:10.2307/4387252 fatcat:y4ky2werord4zdwodumbmv77wi