Pro Milone 47

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Pro Milone 47

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

primum certe liberatur Milo non eo consilio profectus esse ut insidiaretur in via Clodio: quippe, si ille obvius ei futurus omnino non erat...

I understand the sense of it, but how to explain the first non?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
Posts: 5102
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California
Contact:

Re: Pro Milone 47

Post by bedwere »

My take is that it modifies eo consilio.

First surely Milo is acquitted that he left not with that plan of &c.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Pro Milone 47

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Now that makes perfect sense. Maximas, amice, tibi gratias.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
Posts: 5102
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California
Contact:

Re: Pro Milone 47

Post by bedwere »

Libentissime!

talus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:38 am

Re: Pro Milone 47

Post by talus »

The non eo consilio...ut construction is used elsewhere.
From Cicero de Oratore 2.138 (or Liber Secundus XXXII)
Haec ego non eo consilio disputo, ut homines eruditos redarguam; I treat of these things not with this intention - that I might refute learned men; Or, I treat of these things with this intention in mind - not to refute learned men;

From Cicero pro Milo 47, our topic sentence
primum certe liberatur Milo non eo consilio profectus esse ut insidiaretur in via Clodio: quippe, si ille obvius ei futurus omnino non erat... Firstly and resolvedly Milo is acquited of the charge of having set out not due to the intention to waylay Clodius on the road, for of course it is obvious, in as much as that one was so not on a path where he would end up meeting him.
Milo is not innocent because he does not have a plan (who can prove intent?).
The reason Milo is absolutely innocent is not because it can be established that he did not set
out with a nasty plan in mind, but because the implication that he did so is absurd from the start
(primum certe) - the two characters could not possibly have met on the road. It is quippe that rhetorically
begins the negation of the accusation.

Post Reply