rep. 1,5

[CSGD]

So, I wanted to read some Cicero in my time off campus and began reading De Republica.

However, I already stumbled across problems in the very first chapter lol.

"hinc enim illa et apud Graecos exempla, Miltiadem victorem domitoremque Persarum, nondum sanatis volneribus iis quae corpore adverso in clarissima victoria accepisset, vitam ex hostium telis servatam in civium vinclis profudisse, et Themistoclem patria quam liberavisset pulsum atque proterritum, non in Graeciae portus per se servatos sed in barbariae sinus confugisse quam adflixerat, nec vero levitatis Atheniensium crudelitatisque in amplissimos civis exempla deficiunt. quae nata et frequentata apud illos etiam in gravissumam civitatem nostram dicunt redundasse;"

Can a noun like exempla just trigger an AcI like that? It makes no sense otherwise, so I guess that's the only explanation lol. I didn't know that. Or am I missing something?

Why is it "liberavisset" subjunctive but "adflixerat" indicative? I could somehow explain both on their own, but here they are in a strange kind of parallel if you know what I mean lol.

I like the accusative "in gravissimam civitatem" ... if I get this right, there is not only just a great number of examples in the Roman society, but those examples kind of slopped over from Greek societies? Like, the Romans copied the Greeks in their envy of powerful people full of merit?

 

[Pacifica]

Can a noun like exempla just trigger an AcI like that?

Yes.

Why is it "liberavisset" subjunctive but "adflixerat" indicative? I could somehow explain both on their own, but here they are in a strange kind of parallel if you know what I mean lol.

As perhaps you know, the verbs of subordinate clauses that are part of indirect speech take the subjunctive as a rule. Now, a subordinate clause can depend on indirect speech without really (or entirely) being part of it. Its content can be stated as a fact by the speaker of writer themselves. So here, for whatever reason, Cicero decided to do that with adflixerat. (Maybe he wanted to stress how real it had been.) There is obviously some leeway in such matters; it can simply depend on an author's perspective and whim at a given moment.

Liberavisset could possibly have a concessive shade of meaning, which would be a second reason for the subjunctive. But since it's part of indirect speech anyway, the indirect speech could be the only reason; you can't really tell.

I like the accusative "in gravissimam civitatem" ... if I get this right, there is not only just a great number of examples in the Roman society, but those examples kind of slopped over from Greek societies? Like, the Romans copied the Greeks in their envy of powerful people full of merit?

Yes.

 

[CSGD]

As perhaps you know, the verbs of subordinate clauses that are part of indirect speech take the subjunctive as a rule.

Thank you, Pacifica. I knew that, but it was surprising that it happened in the same sentence in such a similar construction.