loci antiqui...Disillusionment

[elduce]

Salve omnibus:
I translated loci antiqui #1, Disillusionment, some time ago rather haphazardly and so I've returned to it to set it right, but what I have failed to grasp is the second sentence:

et quod vides perisse perditum ducas.

I've mulled over this one for days. Is it an indirect statement? Why is that damn sujunctive verb there? Is quod a relative pronoun?

and you see that which has perished you should lead (it) having been lost

and you see that which having been lost that has perished you should lead

Thanks for any help.

[benissimus]

Salve omnibus:
I translated loci antiqui #1, Disillusionment, some time ago rather haphazardly and so I've returned to it to set it right, but what I have failed to grasp is the second sentence:

et quod vides perisse perditum ducas.

I've mulled over this one for days. Is it an indirect statement? Why is that damn sujunctive verb there? Is quod a relative pronoun?

and you see that which has perished you should lead (it) having been lost

and you see that which having been lost that has perished you should lead

Thanks for any help.

First of all, it is necessary to use the secondary meaning "to regard" of ducere. Another part that might be regarded as tricky is the indirect statement within a relative clause: quod vides perisse "what you see to have perished" = "what you see has perished".

ducas can be transated as an imperative. There is also an indirect statement in the main clause: (id) perditum (esse) ducas "regard it to be lost" = "regard as lost".

[elduce]

Thanks Benissimus. I wonder why W chose not to add 'sc. esse' to help it along.