if not more so. At this moment, I remember two cases of this in Horace:-
-

1. "Raro antecedentem scelestum
_Deseruit_ pede poena claudo;"
2. "saepe Diespiter
Neglectus incesto _addidit_ integrum."

That is--"oftentimes the supreme ruler, when treated with neglect,
confounds or unites (not _has united_, as the tyro might fancy) the
impure man with the upright in one common fate."

Exceedingly common is this usage in Latin poetry, when the object is to
generalize a remark--as not connected with one mode of time more than
another. In reality, all three modes of time--past, present, future--are
used (though not equally used) in all languages for this purpose of
generalization. Thus,--

1. The _future_; as, Sapiens dominabitur astris;
2. The _present_; as, Fortes fortuna juvat;
3. The _past_; as in the two cases cited from Horace.

But this practice holds equally in English: as to the future and the
present, nobody will doubt it; and here is a case from the past: "The
fool _hath said_ in his heart, There is no God;" not meaning, that in
some past time he has said so, but that generally in all times he _does_
say so, and _will_ say so.

[17] "_Too obstinate a preconception_."--Until the birth of geology, and
fossil paleontology, concurring with vast strides ahead in the science of