George Martin Lane died on the thirtieth of June, 1897. His _Latin
Grammar_, in the preparation of which he had been engaged, during the
intervals of teaching in Harvard University, for nearly thirty years,
was at that time approaching completion. The first two hundred and
ninety-one pages had been stereotyped; the pages immediately following,
on the _Relative Sentence_ and the _Conjunctive Particle Sentence_
through _quod_ and _quia_ (pages 292-302), together with the chapter on
the _Infinitive_ (pages 374-386), were ready for stereotyping; of the
remainder of the book, pages 303-373 and 387-436 were in the form of a
first draught; finally, he had received a few weeks before his death,
but had never examined, the manuscript of the chapter on _Versification_
(pages 442-485), written at his invitation by his former pupil, Dr.
Herman W. Hayley, now of Wesleyan University.
It was found that my dear and honoured master had left a written request
that his work should be completed by me, in consultation with his
colleagues, Professors Frederic De Forest Allen and Clement Lawrence
Smith. A month had scarcely passed when scholars everywhere had another
heavy loss to mourn in the sudden death of Professor Allen. Almost
immediately afterwards, Professor Smith left this country, to take
charge for a year of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome,
but not before we had agreed that circumstances required the early
publication of the book, notwithstanding his absence. I was thus
deprived of two eminent counsellors, whose knowledge and experience
would have been of inestimable assistance.
About one hundred and twenty pages (303-373 and 387-436), exclusive of
_Versification_, were yet to receive their final form. Professor Lane
had determined the order in which the topics contained in these pages
should be treated, and no change has been made in that order. Most of
the main principles of syntax, too, have been left exactly as they were
expressed in his draught. This draught was written some years ago, and,
although he had corrected and annotated it from time to time, there
is no doubt that in writing it out afresh he would have made many
alterations and improvements which are not indicated in his notes.
Consequently, he is not to be held responsible for errors and omissions
in the pages which had not received his final approval. Yet I conceived
it my duty to preserve, so far as possible, the very language of his
corrected draught; and this, in the statement of almost all the main
principles, I have been able to do. Some modifications and some radical
alterations were inevitable; in particular, the treatment of _quamvis_,
_quando_, _quin_, the _Supine_, and _Numerals_ seemed to call for much
amplification and rearrangement. I have also deemed it necessary to add
some seventy sections[1] under various heads, and Dr. Hayley has been
good enough to write sections 2458-2510, which precede his chapter on
_Versification_. But, in general, my principal function has been: first,
to provide additional Latin examples of the principles which Professor
Lane had formulated; secondly, to enter, under the various principles,
historical statements regarding the usage in the Latin writers, drawn
from the best authorities at my disposal.
[Footnote 1: The sections which I have added are as follows: 1866,
1873, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1887, 1890, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1907, 1909,
1913, 1922, 1927, 1935, 1964, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982,
1983, 1984, 1989, 1990, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2068, 2086,
2088, 2097, 2111, 2122, 2152, 2155, 2255, 2264, 2267, 2271, 2273,
2275, 2276, 2277, 2281, 2289, 2292, 2345, 2357, 2400, 2406, 2407,
2408, 2409, 2410, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2740-2745.]
Professor Lane’s own method was far from that of a compiler. He took
nothing for granted without thorough investigation, however well
established it might seem, and he followed the dictum of no man, however
widely accepted as an authority. For example, his many pupils and
correspondents will remember how untiring he was in his efforts to
arrive at accuracy in even the minutest points of inflection. Thus, for
the _List of Verbs_ (§§ 922-1022), he made entirely new collections, and
admitted no form among the ‘principal parts’ unless actually found
represented in the authors. In the details of syntax, he was equally
indefatigable; the sections on the _Locative Proper_ (1331-1341), for
instance, contain the result of an immense amount of painful research.
He devoted much anxious thought to the definitions and the titles of the
various constructions: thus, the distinction between the _Present of
Vivid Narration_ (1590) and the _Annalistic Present_ (1591) seems
obvious now that it is stated; but to reach it many pages of examples
were collected and compared. He held that examples printed in the
grammar to illustrate syntactical principles should never be
manufactured; they should be accurately quoted from the authors, without
other alteration than the omission of words by which the construction
under illustration was not affected. He was careful, also, not to use an
example in which there was any serious doubt as to the text in that part
which covered the principle illustrated by the example. To ‘Hidden
Quantity’ he had given much attention, and many of the results of his
studies in this subject were published, in 1889, in the _School
Dictionary_ by his friend Dr. Lewis. Since that time he had found reason
to change his views with regard to some words, and these changes are
embodied in the present book, in which he marked every vowel which he
believed to be long in quantity.
The order in which the divisions and subdivisions of grammar are here
presented will not seem strange to those who are acquainted with the
recent grammars published by Germans. It is the scientific order of
presentation, whatever order a teacher may think fit to follow in his
actual practice. The table of contents has been made so full as to serve
as a systematic exposition of the scheme, and to make needless any
further words upon it here. In the _Appendix_ Professor Lane would have
inserted, out of deference to custom, a chapter on the _Arrangement of
Words_; but the draught of it which he left was too fragmentary for
publication. Since the proper preparation of the chapter would have
greatly delayed the publication of the book, it was thought best to omit
it altogether, at least for the present. This topic, in fact, like some
others in the _Appendix_, belongs rather to a treatise on Latin
Composition than to a Latin Grammar.
For the indexes, and for much valuable help in proof reading, I heartily
thank Dr. J. W. Walden, another of Professor Lane’s pupils.
In the course of his work, Professor Lane frequently consulted his
colleagues and other distinguished scholars both in this country and in
Europe. He gratefully welcomed their advice, and carefully considered
and often adopted their suggestions. Had he lived to write a preface, he
would doubtless have thanked by name those to whom he considered himself
as under particular obligation, whether from direct correspondence or
through the use of their published works; but it is obvious that the
information in my possession will not allow me to attempt this pleasant
duty. Of Professor Lane’s pupils, also, not a few, while in residence as
advanced students at the University, were from time to time engaged in
the collection of material which he used in the grammar. They, like his
other helpers, must now be content with the thought of the courteous
acknowledgment which they would have received from him.