need help with pronoun antecedents

[hlawson38]

Suetonius, Divus Iulius, XIV

As many senators press for harsh measures against the Catilinian conspirators, now under arrest, Julius Caesar scares them with the prospect of an enraged plebian class filled with hatred for those who would punish Catiline and his alllies.

I need help on the pronouns marked with asterisks.

quin et tantum metum iniecit asperiora suadentibus, identidem ostentans quanta eos in posterum a plebe Romana maneret inuidia, ut Decimum Silanum consulem designatum non piguerit sententiam suam*, quia mutare turpe erat, interpretatione lenire, uelut grauius atque ipse* sensisset exceptam.

Translation:

Moreover, he [Caesar] inspired such dread in those calling for harsh measures, again and again showing how much hatred against them would dwell in plebian hearts, that consul-elect Decimus Silanus did not deign to soften by interpretation his own proposal [for punishing Catiline's friends], because it would have been shameful to alter the proposal, as if it had been taken more harshly than he [Silanus] had intended.

This was a hard passage for me, because I wavered on "sententiam suam" [Silanus's or Caesar's] and on "ipse" (Silanus himself, or Caesar himself).

But after reviewing James Morwood, I decided that this rule applies:

In result clauses the reflexives se and suus refer to the subject of the ut/ut non clause. (Morwood, Latin Grammar, p. 100, no. 2)/quote]

Besides, the passage seems more coherent this way.

For lagniappe there is the "quin et", a nice example of one of the uses of this word "quin", which I find hard to interpret.

[Qimmik]

Both suam and ipse refer to Silanus.

Reflexives normally refer to the subject of their clause. Here the verb piguerit is impersonal There is no grammatical subject, and the logical subject, Silanus, is in the accusative. Suam refers to Silanus even though he is not the grammatical subject.

Allen & Greenough sec. 301b and c cover this (although perhaps a bit too dogmatically):

b. The reflexive may refer to any noun or pronoun in its own clause which is so emphasized as to become the subject of discourse:—

1.Sōcratem cīvēs suī interfēcērunt, Socrates was put to death by his own fellowcitizens.
quī poterat salūssua cuiquam nōnprobārī; (Mil. 81), how can any one fail to approve his own safety? [In this and the preceding example the emphasis is preserved in English by the change of voice.]2.“hunc sī secūtī erunt suī comitēs ” (Cat. 2.10) , this man, if his companions follow him.

[*] Note.--Occasionally the clause to which the reflexive really belongs is absorbed: as, “—studeō sānāre sibi ipsōs” (Cat. 2.17) , I am anxious to cure these men for their own benefit (i.e. ut sānī sibi sint).

[*] c.Suus is used for one's own as emphatically opposed to that of others, in any part of the sentence and with reference to any word in it:—

“suīs flammīs dēlēte Fīdēnās ” (Liv. 4.33) , destroy Fidenœ with its own fires (the fires kindled by that city, figuratively). [Cf. Cat. 1.32.]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D301

Note turpe erat: this is a contrary-to-fact condition with the indicative, not the subjunctive.

A&G sec. 517c:

c. Verbs and other expressions denoting necessity, propriety, possibility, duty, when used in the apodosis of a condition contrary to fact, may be put in the Imperfect or Perfect Indicative.

Such are oportet, decet, dēbeō, possum, necesse est, opus est, and the Second Periphrastic Conjugation:—2
1.“nōn potuit fierī sapiēns, nisi nātus esset ” (Fin. 2.103) , he could not have become a sage, if he had not been born.
2.“sī prīvātus esset hōc tempore, tamen is erat dēligendus” (Manil. 50) , if he were at this time a private citizen, yet he ought to be appointed.
3.“quod esse caput dēbēbat, sī probārī posset ” (Fin. 4.23) , what ought to be the main point, if it could be proved.
4.“sī ita putāsset, certē optābilius Milōnī fuit” (Mil. 31) , if he had thought so, surely it would have been preferable for Milo.

[*] Note.--In Present conditions the Imperfect Subjunctive (oportēret, possem, etc.) is the rule, the Indicative being rare; in Past conditions both the Subjunctive (usually Pluperfect) and the Indicative (usually Perfect) are common.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D517

See also 521a Note:

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

[hlawson38]

Qimmik wrote:

Both suam and ipse refer to Silanus.

Reflexives normally refer to the subject of their clause. Here the verb piguerit is impersonal There is no grammatical subject, and the logical subject, Silanus, is in the accusative. Suam refers to Silanus even though he is not the grammatical subject.

[snip ]

Note turpe erat: this is a contrary-to-fact condition with the indicative, not the subjunctive.

[ snip]

Extremely helpful critique, Qimmik! Many thanks.