In Catilinam I: Reading Thread

[Imber Ranae]

The ut clause after faciam is consecutive, not final. This is a usual idiom with facere, as Etaoin said. quod also can't be causal here because it has an obvious antecedent in id, which is in apposition to the thought behind referam: 'a thing which is contrary to...'

 

[Callaina]

The ut clause after faciam is consecutive, not final. This is a usual idiom with facere, as Etaoin said.

Huh, ok. For some reason I had thought that consecutive clauses couldn't refer to the future. It seems odd to talk about a result happening that hasn't happened yet; I mean, doesn't it (while Cicero is speaking) exist purely in Cicero's mind (as a purpose), rather than in reality (as a result)?

quod also can't be causal here because it has an obvious antecedent in id, which is in apposition to the thought behind referam: 'a thing which is contrary to...'

So, something like "I will not bring (before the Senate) it [id = this thing/motion], which [quod] is contrary to my principles..."

Which makes sense, but why is there a comma after referam? It seems to break up the thought...

 

[Pacifica]

Id doesn't represent the motion, but the whole fact of bringing the motion before the Senate.

Literally, "I will not bring [the motion before the Senate], that (= the act of bringing it) which is contrary to..."

It's very unidiomatic (or rather just wrong) in English of course, but I hope you get the system.

 

[Callaina]

Id doesn't represent the motion, but the whole fact of bringing the motion before the Senate.

Literally, "I will not bring [the motion before the Senate], that (= the act of bringing it) which is contrary to..."

It's very unidiomatic (or rather just wrong) in English of course, but I hope you get the system.

Well...sort of? It still doesn't seem to flow very well.

I think what's confusing me is the id and quod in close promixity. It seems redundant. Why didn't Cicero just write:

Non referam, id abhorret a meis moribus...

"I will not bring [the motion before the Senate], it [the act of bringing it] is contrary to my principles..."

 

[Pacifica]

Well...sort of? It still doesn't seem to flow very well.

Indeed it doesn't, it's very abnormal in English, but I translated word-for-word in order to show the construction of the Latin; I don't know how else to do...

I think what's confusing me is the id and quod in close promixity. It seems redundant. Why didn't Cicero just write:

Non referam, id abhorret a meis moribus...

"I will not bring [the motion before the Senate], it [the act of bringing it] is contrary to my principles..."

Latin idiom...

 

[Imber Ranae]

Huh, ok. For some reason I had thought that consecutive clauses couldn't refer to the future. It seems odd to talk about a result happening that hasn't happened yet; I mean, doesn't it (while Cicero is speaking) exist purely in Cicero's mind (as a purpose), rather than in reality (as a result)?

I think you're applying the term too literally. After all, why could a result not refer to the future? Can't we say in English 'I hope you don't eat so much candy that there won't be any room left for supper'? That would be purely in the speaker's mind as well.

So, something like "I will not bring (before the Senate) it [id = this thing/motion], which [quod] is contrary to my principles..."

Which makes sense, but why is there a comma after referam? It seems to break up the thought...

No, it's not the motion that's inconsistent with his character, but the bringing of it. It's an aside: 'I won't bring the motion/refer to the senate, a thing which isn't/which is something not in keeping with my character, and yet I...'. id quod is frequently used like this, as a kind of apposition to the thought that went before.

 

[Callaina]

id quod is frequently used like this, as a kind of apposition to the thought that went before.

Latin idiom...

Ok, will take your word for it. Thanks, guys

 

[Callaina]

A couple paragraphs later:

[22] IX. Quamquam quid loquor? te ut ulla res frangat, tu ut umquam te corrigas, tu ut ullam fugam meditere, tu ut ullum exilium cogites? Utinam tibi istam mentem di inmortales duint! tametsi video, si mea voce perterritus ire in exilium animum induxeris quanta tempestas invidiae nobis, si minus in praesens tempus recenti memoria scelerum tuorum, at in posteritatem impendeat. Sed est tanti, dum modo ista sit privata calamitas et a rei publicae periculis seiungatur. Sed tu ut vitiis tuis commoveare, ut legum poenas pertimescas, ut temporibus rei publicae cedas, non est postulandum. Neque enim is es, Catilina, ut te aut pudor umquam a turpitudine aut metus a periculo aut ratio a furore revocarit.

The rest of the paragraph is easy, but the bolded sentence really confused me. (I took my best guess but ended up looking at the English translation, from Perseus: "though I see, if alarmed at my words you bring your mind to go into banishment, what a storm of unpopularity hangs over me, if not at present, while the memory of your wickedness is fresh, at all events hereafter.")

Two questions:

- Shouldn't quanta tempestas be in accusative, not nominative? "Though I see...what a storm of unpopularity..."
- The other thing I found odd was his use of nobis to refer to himself (Cicero). Looking back over the parts I've read so far, he does seem to switch back and forth between nos = "me" (Cicero) and nos = "us" (the Senators/people of Rome.) Is this common? It's confused me several times now, so I suppose I should be looking out for it...

 

[Imber Ranae]

- Shouldn't quanta tempestas be in accusative, not nominative? "Though I see...what a storm of unpopularity..."

No, it's an indirect question: 'how great a storm of unpopularity hangs over me...how large the storm of unpopularity that hangs over me is...' It wouldn't work as AcI, which would require you to translate it as 'I see that...such and such'.

 

[Callaina]

No, it's an indirect question

Ah, got it. Thanks.

 

[Imber Ranae]

I missed this before:

It seems odd that the Senate would have the power to kill a Roman citizen, since Cicero repeatedly talks about the Senate already having issued a decree (as yet unused) to kill Cataline (e.g. in section 4: "Habemus eneiim huiusce modi senatus consultum, verum inclusum in tabulis tamquam in vagina reconditum, quo ex senatus consulto confestim te interfectum esse, Catilina, convenit"), but that they wouldn't have the power to send one into exile.

I don't think the decree he mentioned earlier was issued specifically for Catiline's killing. It was surely something less direct; something that could possibly have been interpreted to justify such a course of action but not something that would have unambiguously endorsed it with no room for dissent. A senatus consultum ultimum gave the consuls certain emergency powers, but it didn't necessarily give them carte blanche to ignore every other law without having to face later consequences for breaking them. Cicero is of course playing up his own case, so your impression of it is understandable.

 

[Callaina]

Cicero is of course playing up his own case, so your impression of it is understandable.

Yes -- in general, I find myself possibly "buying into" Cicero's rhetoric more than I should. He's a highly convincing writer/speaker, LOL, but perhaps not always to be taken at face value...

Mind you, Cataline (by all accounts) sounds like a thoroughly vile individual, no matter what way you look at it.

 

[Callaina]

Okay, this paragraph is confusing the heck out of me, on several levels.

[24] Quamquam quid ego te invitem, a quo iam sciam esse praemissos, qui tibi ad Forum Aurelium praestolarentur armati, cui* iam sciam pactam et constitutam cum Manlio diem, a quo etiam aquilam illam argenteam, quam tibi ac tuis omnibus confido perniciosam ac funestam futuram, cui domi tuae** sacrarium [scelerum tuorum] constitutum fuit, sciam esse praemissam? Tu ut illa carere diutius possis, quam venerari ad caedem proficiscens solebas, a cuius altaribus saepe istam impiam dexteram ad necem civium transtulisti?

Perseus translation:

Though why should I invite you, by whom I know men have been already sent on to wait in arms for you at the forum Aurelium; who I know has fixed and agreed with Manlius upon a settled day; by whom I know that that silver eagle, which I trust will be ruinous and fatal to you and to all your friends, and to which there was set up in your house a shrine as it were of your crimes, has been already sent forward. Need I fear that you can long do without that which you used to worship when going out to do murder, and from whose altars you have often transferred your impious hand to the slaughter of citizens?

Questions:

1) The subjunctives in the opening sentence (sigh). Looking over it again, I'm thinking invitem, in the opening clause, is a deliberative subjunctive, praestolarentur is a relative clause of characteristic, and perhaps the two occurrences of sciam are as well ("but why should I invite you, [the sort of person] from whom men have already been sent" etc...) Is this correct?

2) What is this whole business with the silver eagle being sent to someone (Manlius, maybe?) and what is its symbolism/significance here?

3) What is the illa (which Perseus, unhelpfully, just translates as "that") in the final sentence -- it seems to be referring to the silver eagle mentioned in the previous sentence, but this doesn't seem to make sense...was the eagle worshipped in ancient Rome?

4) I'm unsure about the cui I've marked with an asterisk; is it that the day has been settled, etc. "for" Cataline in particular, or (in a more general sense) "for" the slaughter, etc. that the armed men in the Forum are waiting to carry out?

5) domi tuae... Perseus translates this as "in your house" but it literally means "of your house." I suppose this could just be a standard idiom for something being built/set up "in" or "under the authority of" a household -- or is there something I'm missing here...

6) And, finally, I just don't get the overall thrust of Cicero's rhetoric in this paragraph, and particularly the final sentence; the intention seems to be sarcasm, but I don't get it. Help, please...

 

[Pacifica]

1) The subjunctives in the opening sentence (sigh). Looking over it again, I'm thinking invitem, in the opening clause, is a deliberative subjunctive, praestolarentur is a relative clause of characteristic, and perhaps the two occurrences of sciam are as well ("but why should I invite you, [the sort of person] from whom men have already been sent" etc...) Is this correct?

Invitem is a deliberative subjunctive, the sciam's are in the causal or perhaps adversative ("since/when/while") kind of relative clauses, and praestolarentur is purpose (at any rate I feel it is, though even if it weren't it would be in the subjunctive anyway because it's part of indirect speech).

2) What is this whole business with the silver eagle being sent to someone (Manlius, maybe?) and what is its symbolism/significance here?

All I know is that those kinds of eagles were often emblems of legions/armies. I don't know anything more, I don't know the story.

3) What is the illa (which Perseus, unhelpfully, just translates as "that") in the final sentence -- it seems to be referring to the silver eagle mentioned in the previous sentence, but this doesn't seem to make sense...was the eagle worshipped in ancient Rome?

It's indeed referring to the silver eagle. Idolatry, you know.

4) I'm unsure about the cuiI've marked with an asterisk; is it that the day has been settled, etc. "for" Cataline in particular, or (in a more general sense) "for" the slaughter, etc. that the armed men in the Forum are waiting to carry out?

"For" Catiline literally, and "by" Catiline; Catiline has a day agreed on with Manlius/a day has been agreed between them.

5) domi tuae... Perseus translates this as "in your house" but it literally means "of your house." I suppose this could just be a standard idiom for something being built/set up "in" or "under the authority of" a household -- or is there something I'm missing here...

It's a locative. Domus is one of the few common nouns having a locative.

6) And, finally, I just don't get the overall thrust of Cicero's rhetoric in this paragraph, and particularly the final sentence; the intention seems to be sarcasm, but I don't get it. Help, please...

I can't help you with that since I don't know the context.

Edit: Though I can tell that the sarcasm in the last sentence is that Cicero implies he's actually sure Catiline will soon join te eagle (and so his army, to attack his enemies/perpetrate slaugther).

 

[Imber Ranae]

1) The subjunctives in the opening sentence (sigh). Looking over it again, I'm thinking invitem, in the opening clause, is a deliberative subjunctive, praestolarentur is a relative clause of characteristic, and perhaps the two occurrences of sciam are as well ("but why should I invite you, [the sort of person] from whom men have already been sent" etc...) Is this correct?

Correct about the first, but praestolarentur is a pretty straightforward relative clause of purpose: he sent men ahead to wait for him in arms. All three instances of sciam are relative clauses of characteristic that have a causal sense to them.

2) What is this whole business with the silver eagle being sent to someone (Manlius, maybe?) and what is its symbolism/significance here?

It's the military standard of a Roman legion, the aquila.

3) What is the illa (which Perseus, unhelpfully, just translates as "that") in the final sentence -- it seems to be referring to the silver eagle mentioned in the previous sentence, but this doesn't seem to make sense...was the eagle worshipped in ancient Rome?

Yes, it's the eagle standard. I don't think it was literally worshipped, but the Romans did treat it with a kind of reverence and would make sacrifices around it (hence the altars). Losing it was considered a very bad thing for a general. The implication here seems to be that Catiline was treating it sacrilegiously.

4) I'm unsure about the cui I've marked with an asterisk; is it that the day has been settled, etc. "for" Cataline in particular, or (in a more general sense) "for" the slaughter, etc. that the armed men in the Forum are waiting to carry out?

It refers to Catiline. It's a very general dative of reference, which seems to imply agency as well.

5) domi tuae... Perseus translates this as "in your house" but it literally means "of your house." I suppose this could just be a standard idiom for something being built/set up "in" or "under the authority of" a household -- or is there something I'm missing here...

It's locative. 'of your house' would be domus tuae (w/a long u)

6) And, finally, I just don't get the overall thrust of Cicero's rhetoric in this paragraph, and particularly the final sentence; the intention seems to be sarcasm, but I don't get it. Help, please...

Only the last line is sarcastic, but the tone of the whole thing is certainly mocking.

 

[Pacifica]

'of your house' would be domus tuae (w/a long u)

I think the gen. can also be in - i.

 

[Callaina]

I think the gen. can also be in - i.

Yes, according to Perseus at any rate...

 

[Callaina]

Thanks -- very helpful (both of you).

One more question: what is that ut doing in the last sentence? It doesn't seem to be purpose ("in order that you may be able to long do without that") or result ("so that you will be able to long do without that"), and it's certainly not an indirect command! But it uses subjunctive...

Either way, I really don't get how the translator gets "Need I fear that you can long do without that" out of this sentence.

 

[Imber Ranae]

I think the gen. can also be in - i.

Not in Cicero.

Yes, according to Perseus at any rate...

It lists it as ante-classical.

 

[Pacifica]

It's introducing a substantive clause, kind of exclamatory (and implying disbelief), literally, "That you could long do without that....?" Implying "surely it isn't possible".