Sallust: Catilinae Coniuratio: 12.5

[aprotosimaki]

Hi,

I am a little stuck with the last part of this sentence, specifically the use of the subjunctive 'esset', and I was hoping someone could shine some light on it for me. Thank you in advance.

[ Sallust: Catilinae Coniuratio: 12.5 ]

At hi contra, ignavissumi homines, per summum scelus omnia ea sociis adimere, quae fortissumi viri victores reliquerant: proinde quasi iniuriam facere id demum esset imperio uti.

But in contrast these men [ i.e. current day Romans ], the most cowardly types, through the worst kind of criminality take from our allies all of their possessions, which the bravest of men had left behind: just as if inflicting harm is the only (demum) use of imperium.


Is 'esset' a potential subjunctive? Or am I looking at the protasis of a Future Less Vivid (the apodosis being supplied by 'quasi iniuram facere')?

[adrianus]

Salve aprotosimaki

"adimere" = "used to take" = historic infinitive (like imperfect tense)// historicus modus infinitivus (sicut tempus imperfectum)

"just as if inflicting harm was the only/ultimate use of power/authority"
"as if the exercise of power were ultimately just to inflict harm"

Isn't it a conditional subjunctive (of comparison) in a dependent clause, requiring the imperfect because of the sequence of tenses (after a secondary tense, the past, in the main clause) and continuous or habitual action?
Nonnè subjunctivus est modus quià conditionalis (comparationis) est clausula dependens quae tempus imperfectum post secondarium (praeteritum scilicet in apodosi) requirit causâ sequentiae temporum actionisque continuae vel usu contractûs?

main clause // apodosis = hi ignavissimi homines omnia ea sociis adimere/adimebant
subordinate or dependent clause // protasis seu dependens clausula = quasi iniuriam facere esset imperio uti

[Kynetus Valesius]

fieri postest ut errem sed rem aliter video - isn't this a case of a contrary to fact condition in the present; they did these things exactly if such abuse were (but it isn't) the only purpose of empire?

[aprotosimaki]

Isn't it a conditional subjunctive (of comparison) ..

I think you are 100% correct. I consulted my trusty A+G New Latin Grammar and found it under section 524 "Conditional Clauses of Comparison". The most relevant example they use is this:

quasi vero non specie visa iudicentur: as if in truth visible things were not judged by their appearance.

Good eye and thanks for the pointer.

...in a dependent clause.
main clause // apodosis = hi ignavissimi homines omnia ea sociis adimere/adimebant
subordinate or dependent clause// quasi iniuriam facere esset imperio uti

I am not sure I agree with you that it is a subordinate clause where the apodosis is supplied by "hi ignavissimi ...". My understanding is that in such constructions the apodosis is assumed.