ut esset quem plebs

[pmda]

I'm a it perplexed by the use of the word quem in this sentence from Cap XLII of Oberg's LLPSI. Livy (adapted by Orberg) is explaining how King Numa gave, placed his son-in-law in charge of all public and private rites / ceremonies.

Cetera quoque omnia publica privataque sacra pontifici mandavit, ut esset [aliquis] quem plebs consuleret, ne ritus neglegerentur.

Also all of the remaining public and private ceremonies he placed in in the hands of the priest, so that (any) common person could consult him and the ritual not be neglected.

- is, I think the gist of it. I have three areas of confusion.

1. I take it that quem is standing in for the Pontifex?

2 Orberg's explanation is not clear to me. In the margin he explains 'ut esset aliquis' (see my square brackets). But surely aliquis is merely referring to the plebs. As in the sense of the sentence is '...ut esset quem aliquis plebs' - so that when some common person....consulted...him...'

3. What is esset doing in this sentence? Is it necessary?

[Shenoute]

Hi,

With the addition of aliquis, quem stands for aliquis :
ut esset aliquis > so that there would be someone
quem plebs consuleret > that the plebs would consult.

But without the aliquis, it seems to me that two slightly different understandings are possible (the first one looking more natural to me) :
ut esset quem plebs consuleret
> "so that he (the pontifex) would be the one that the plebs would consult."
or
> "so that there would be someone that the plebs would consult."

As usual, I hope I'm not saying non-sense...

[pmda]

OK so that would be aliquem (acc.) then ?

[pmda]

Ignore the above - I understand.

Many thanks.

[Qimmik]

ut esset quem plebs consuleret

These are two purpose clauses.

ut esset [aliquis] - "so that there would be someone"

quem plebs consuleret -- this is a relative clause of purposes.

Allen & Greenough 531.2:

Relative Clauses of Purpose are introduced by the relative pronoun quī or a relative adverb ( ubi , unde , quō , etc.). The antecedent is expressed or implied in the main clause:—

“mittitur L. Dēcidius Saxa quī locī nātūram perspiciat” (B. C. 1.66) , Lucius Decidius Saxa is sent to examine the ground (who should examine, etc.).
“scrībēbat ōrātiōnēs quās aliī dīcerent” (Brut. 206) , he wrote speeches for other men to deliver.
“eō exstīnctō fore unde discerem nēminem ” (Cat. M. 12) , that when he was dead there would be nobody from whom (whence) I could learn.
huic nē ubi cōnsisteret quidem contrā tē locum relīquistī; (Quinct. 73), you have left him no ground even to make a stand against you.
“habēbam quō cōnfugerem” (Fam. 4.6.2) , I had [a retreat] whither I might flee.

[*] Note 3.--In this construction quī = ut is (etc.), ubi = ut ibi , and so on (§ 537. 2).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001

"so that there would be someone whom the plebs might consult" or "so there would be someone for the plebs to consult."

I think you would have to have ut is esset quem plebs consuleret to mean "so that he would be the one whom the plebs would consult," but maybe not. In any case, the intent here is indicated by the omitted aliquis -- the understood antecedent of quem is indefinite, "someone."

[pmda]

Thanks Qimmik

[Qimmik]

On second thought, ut hic esset quem plebs consuleret for "so that he would be the one whom the plebs would consult" seems more idiomatic for some reason.