Laudis certamen

[interprete]

Hello,
I am reading a text about a war between the Romans and another empire, and a traitor from said empire comes to the Romans and offers to poison his own leader in exchange for favors from the Romans. However the Romans decline because it would not be an honorable victory, and the text concludes thus:

Atqui perfuga unus gravem adversarium imperii sustulisset ; sed magnum dedecus et flagitium fuisset, quocum laudis certamen esset, eum non virtute, sed scelere superari.

I don’t really understand the structure of the sentence there: "thus one traitor would have eliminated a significant enemy for the empire, but it would have been a great dishonor and a shame, whereby [quocum?] the competition for honor (laudis certamen?)... and then I get stuck because I don’t know what to do with "eum". Eum non virtute sed scelere superari (esset) = he would be overcome not by virtue but by crime => Does that refer to the foreign leader? if so, how does this part link up with what comes before it? I just don’t get it...

Thanks!

 

[Pacifica]

Eum (which indeed represents the foreign leader) is the antecedent of quo (yes, notwithstanding the contradiction in terms, antecedents can appear after the relative clause).

Do you find it easier to read in this order?

... eum, quocum laudis certamen esset, non virtute sed scelere superari.

Eum non virtute sed scelere superari (esset)

I'm not sure what you mean with the esset in parentheses. Esset belongs in the relative clause (quocum laudis certamen esset), not here.

 

[interprete]

Eum (which indeed represents the foreign leader) is the antecedent of quo (yes, notwithstanding the contradiction in terms, antecedents can appear after the relative clause).

Do you find it easier to read in this order?

... eum, quocum laudis certamen esset, non virtute sed scelere superari.

I'm not sure what you mean with the esset in parentheses. Esset belongs in the relative clause (quocum laudis certamen esset), not here.

Thank you Pacifica! Yes in this order it makes much more sense! So what comes after flagitium fuisset is an entire infinitive clause, right? "It would have been a shame for him, which whom was the contest for honor, to be overcome not by virtue but by crime" ?

Also, how frequent is this inversion of antecedents and relative clauses? and what is the intended effect (aside from a huge headache for the modern reader)?
Thanks!

 

[Pacifica]

So what comes after flagitium fuisset is an entire infinitive clause, right?

An accusative-and-infinitive clause, yes.

"It would have been a shame for him, which whom was the contest for honor, to be overcome not by virtue but by crime" ?

I would say "it would have been a shame that he... should be overcome", maybe, because "it would have been a shame for him" sounds like he personally would have been shamed, which is not the idea. Otherwise you've got it.

Also, how frequent is this inversion of antecedents and relative clauses?

Pretty frequent. It's a normal thing.

what is the intended effect

A different emphasis, something like "that he (in particular) should be..." Though that's probably overstating it a bit.

 

[interprete]

Merci

 

[Pacifica]

العفو