Augustine, City of God, Book 4, ch.2

Latin Learning Latin
1

Context: Augustine recapitulates his work so far, reminding readers that the present purpose is to show that all kinds of disasters befell the Romans in the time before the coming of Christianity. Hence the pagan critics of Christianity are deploying a double standard: they blame Christianity for recent disasters, but they don’t blame their own religion for earlier disasters. (N.B. Augustine’s argument so far has other dimensions, but this is enough to introduce the quotation.)

Promiseramus ergo quaedam nos esse dicturos aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent uel satis esse uiderentur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent;

Translation: Now, we had promised that we would expose the errors of those [pagan authors] who blame our religion for the [recent] disasters [endured by] the Roman state, and that we would place on record the calamities, as many and as great as would seem sufficient [for our purpose], which afflicted either that state or the provinces belonging to its domain, in the time before the public pagan rites were outlawed.

  1. What about my interpretation of vel . . . vel? I have reduced satis esse viderentur almost to a parenthetic remark. Does this seem OK?

  2. I have made provinciae the plural subject of an understood verb, pertulerunt. I did this out of necessity for the only meaning I could construe. Does that seem appropriate?

2

Hi Hugh. Nice to see you’re making progress with City.

I would say yes to your #2 (sc. pertulerunt).

And yes, I think your interpretation of vel … vel is correct. (I don’t know whether the comma in uel satis esse uiderentur mala, quae … is yours or your sources; I think the vel … vel would be clearer without it.)

I’m not sure I understand why you feel your “would seem sufficient [for our purpose]” is reduced to merely a parenthetic remark. But I have a question for you, magister, or others. How do you construe occurrere potuissent and the entire clause commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent … satis esse uiderentur mala?

3

  1. The two vel are not related here. I would personally keep occurrere potuissent ‘could come [to mind]’ in the translation, which you seem to have cut out. A rather literal translation would be: “and that we would place on record bad things, of whatever kind and in as many in number as they could come to mind or seemed [serious] enough, which…”.

  2. I think this interpretation is correct. However, note that “civitas” here means “city”, as it sometimes does in Late Latin (and most Romance languages today), so the contrast is not between the State and the provinces but Rome and its provinces. A rather literal translation would be: “…which the City or the provinces belonging to its domain endured”.

EDIT: Ninja’d by RandyGibbons. I wrote this response without seeing his.

4

I’m not entirely sure, but I’m wondering whether potuissent (pluperfect) is a contrary to fact or potential subjunctive (in an indirect question), while uiderentur (imperfect) is simply a usual subjunctive in an indirect question, as evidenced perhaps by indicative pertulit: “how many disasters the city and its provinces actually endured seemed sufficient”, contrasting the disasters that could have occurred and those that actually did occur with the contrast between plp subj and imp subj.

“We had promised that . . . we would place on record how great and how many [calamities] might/could have occurred or [how great and how many] calamities that that city and/or the provinces attached to it endured seemed sufficient . . .”

I agree that the two uel’s are not coordinate. Also, Latin doesn’t need you to “understand” pertulerunt; pertulit does the job for both, even if prouinciae is plural.

5

Many thanks to Randy, Ser, and Hylander. So many things about this passage puzzled me that I’ll forbear reply, and instead spend some time studying the helpful comments they gave.

I’m enjoying reading Augustine as a student of history, which lets me enjoy the experience without fretting about whether I should see things as A. does. I keep wondering if NIetzsche studied Augustine, who seems to be to be engaged in the “transvaluation of values”, so that N. could follow A.'s technique to undermine what A. wants to make solid. It’s also becoming more obvious that Augustine, in particular, was an architect of the old-time religion.

6

While Hugh ponders …

et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent uel satis esse uiderentur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes,

Ser and Hylander,

Yep, I think you are right, the _vel_s are not coordinate (and the comma after mala is appropriate.)

Also, I think uiderentur represents a future perfect in the direct speech?

Here’s my take now: “[we had promised that … and that we were going to recall whichever and however many ills will have been able to occur [to us] or that seemed to be sufficient, which that City had suffered or the provinces belonging to its imperium”

7

I think the final part of the paragraph means:

…and to recall all the great evils that could have occurred, even though the evils that did occur to the state or to the rule of its province, before their sacrifices were banned, seem sufficient [for my purpose of refuting those men].

8

So many problems?! But there doesn’t seem to be much left to sort out other than the tense difference between potuissent and viderentur—and perhaps the meaning of occurrere?, which will surely be as Ser took it, “come to mind.” I read potuissent as representing direct-speech future perf.: all that he could (would have been able to) think of, sc. by the time he came (would come) to write. That seems to be how Randy takes it in his translation—it looks as if when he typed viderentur he meant potuissent. Alternatively it could be more like prohibita fuissent in the closing antequam clause, I don’t think it makes much practical difference.
I don’t see a great deal of significance in the tense change. He’s going to record all the mala he can think of (when he comes to recount them) or at any rate those that he thinks (at the moment) enough to make his point. I don’t quite see how Nesrad arrives at his reading.
But I always feel insecure when it comes to Latin.

9

Mwh, I was waiting for you to intervene with the correct reading. How about it?

10

it looks as if when he typed viderentur he meant potuissent

Oops. Thanks, Michael!

SPOILER ALERT!!!

For those, perhaps Hugh, who want to continue chewing on the Latin, don’t read further.

But I finally couldn’t resist, and here’s the translation in my Cambridge/M.W. Dyson edition:

“I undertook to say something against those who attribute to our religion the disasters lately sustained by the Roman commonwealth. I promised also that I should recall the evils - as many of them and as great as I could remember, or as might seem sufficient - which the city of Rome, or the provinces belonging to her empire, suffered even before it was forbidden to sacrifice to demons.”

Conclusion: (1) The vel’s are not coordinate. (2) occurrere means, as Ser had it, ‘occur to Augustine’ (and not ‘happen to the Romans’). (3) potuissent renders future perfect of direct speech. (4) Once again, Hugh, an excellent question that pulls me into reading this great work. In gratitude, I shall be sacrificing to the demons.

11

Many thanks for the comments on this passage, which gave me much trouble.

If I ever learned the future perfect of direct speech, I have forgotten it. I’d be most grateful for a reference in Allen and Greenough, or a URL reference to this topic.

As for occurrere, I did not know the possible meaning, “to come to mind”, and I’m happy to hear about that. It is right there in Lewis and Short, as well as in the English cognate, “I occurred to me that you might have been . . ..”

12

Occur meaning occur to one: it didn’t occur to me either. (I think there’s the making of a song lyric there.)

sequence of tenses in Allen and Greenough. See 484c.

13

Future perfect in direct speech (represented by pluperfect subjunctive in “secondary sequence”, as Randy’s cite indicates): a verb that occurs (no pun intended) before a future verb to which it is subordinate (here commemoraturos [esse]).

Potuissent is in “secondary sequence” because the verb to which the entire indirect speech is subordinate, promiseramus, is pluperfect, i.e. a past tense, and therefore potuissent is pluperfect subjunctive, “representing” future perfect indicative in direct speech. Direct speech would be something like nos commemorabimus . . . quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuerunt . . . mala, quae . . .

In sum, the “coming to mind” of the disasters necessarily happens before A. records them, so future perfect would be used here in direct speech, and this becomes pluperfect subjunctive in indirect speech in “secondary sequence”. (The “seeming adequate”, satis esse uiderentur, presumably happens at the same time as A. is recording the disasters, so uiderentur is imperfect subjunctive, representing present tense or simple future of direct speech in secondary sequence.)

A&G 478 is confusing and not very helpful:

The Future Perfect denotes an action as completed in the future:—

“ut sēmentem fēceris, ita metēs ” (De Or. 2.261) , as you sow (shall have sown), so shall you reap.
“carmina tum melius, cum vēnerit ipse, canēmus ” (Ecl. 9.67) , then shall we sing our songs better, when he himself has come (shall have come).
sī illīus īnsidiae clāriōrēs hāc lūce fuerint, tum dēnique obsecrābō; (Mil. 6), when the plots of that man have been shown to be as clear as daylight, then, and not till then, shall I conjure you.
“ego certē meum officium praestiterō ” (B. G. 4.25) , I at least shall have done my duty (i.e. when the time comes to reckon up the matter, I shall be found to have done it, whatever the event).

[*] Note.–Latin is far more exact than English in distinguishing between mere future action and action completed in the future. Hence the Future Perfect is much commoner in Latin than in English. It may even be used instead of the Future, from the fondness of the Romans for representing an action as completed:—

“quid inventum sit paulō post vīderō ” (Acad. 2.76) , what has been found out I shall see presently.
“quī Antōnium oppresserit bellum taeterrimum cōnfēcerit ” (Fam. 10.19) , whoever crushes (shall have crushed) Antony will finish (will have finished) a most loathsome war.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+478&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001

14

Thanks to Randy Gibbons the reference, and to Hylander for the lucid explanation which was exactly on point.

15

I want to submit, for critique, grammatical rationales for the tense and mood of the verbs in this sentence, as I understand them after some study. I needed some re-learning on this topic.

I repeat the quotation for ease of reference.

Promiseramus ergo quaedam nos esse dicturos aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent uel satis esse uiderentur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent;

promiseramus: indicative, pluperfect. “I had promised, had undertaken”. The promise was made in the past, before Aug. had written the text he is summarizing.

dicturos … commemoratos: future infinitives in indirect discourse. The fulfillment of the promises would happen later than the promise.

referunt: present, active, indicative. This verb is indicative, rather than subjunctive, in conformity with Allen and Greenough, #583: “A Subordinate Clause . . . regarded as true independently of the quotation takes the Indicative.” It is present tense because Augustine’s adversaries continue to blame Augustine’s religion.

occurrere potuissent: This is a subjunctive verb in a subordinate clause in indirect discourse. Pluperfect tense tells us that Aug. already knew the disasters he wanted to write about, before he promised to do the writing.

viderentur: imperfect subjunctive. This is another subordinate clause in indirect discourse, hence the subjunctive. The imperfect tense tells us that when Aug. made the promise to write up these historic disasters, he did not yet know how many of them he would write up. Presumably he meant to decide that matter after he got some of the writing done.

pertulit: perfect active indicative. That Rome and its provinces endured these disasters is a historical fact. Same rationale for indicative as for “referunt” above.

antequam . . . prohibuisset: this is part of the indirect discourse, I tentatively suggest. The pluperfect subjunctive is relative to the main verb’s establishment of secondary sequence.

I’ll be grateful for corrections.

16

occurrere potuissent: I think that potuissent, pluperf. subj., represents the future perfect indicative, not the pluperfect, relative to commemoraturos. Some disasters might come to mind before he got around to writing about them.

viderentur – after thinking about this and considering the possibility that (contrary to the usual rules for sequence of tenses) the imperfect subjunctive might represent the future tense in secondary sequence, I think it actually looks back to the time when he made his promise, so it represents the present tense in secondary sequence. He thought he already knew about enough disasters to make his point when he made his promise to tell us about them.

He already had some disasters in mind when he made the promise, and those seemed (viderentur) sufficient at the time, but he recognized that others might (potuissent) occur (as we would say in English, or more consistent with Latin sequence, have occurred) to him before he got around to writing about them.

17

Sorry, disregard this.

18

[Note: I thought I had saved a draft response, which went poof, then I though I submitted a response, which went poof. So I apologize if there is a technical problem and these show up at some point.]

occurrere potuissent: … Pluperfect tense tells us that Aug. already knew the disasters he wanted to write about, before he promised to do the writing.

Incorrect. As Hylander reminds, we had pointed out that in this case potuissent represents not a past tense in the direct discourse but the future perfect in the direct discourse. It tells us that the disasters will have occurred to Augustine by the time he sits down to write. (That in reality he pretty much had them in mind at the time he made the promise is certainly likely, but we’re speaking here strictly grammatically.)

The direct discourse: “I promise that I will … recall [in my writing] whichever and however many disasters will have occurred to me [by the time I put plume to parchment] or those which seem sufficient [for my purposes, at the time I write].” Technically, at the time of writing, the recollection in his mind of the complete litany of disasters will be a completed action, the decision as to which will be sufficient an incomplete action. This seems to me standard sequence of tenses rules, and I respectfully disagree with Hylander here.

antequam . . . prohibuisset: this is part of the indirect discourse, I tentatively suggest. The pluperfect subjunctive is relative to the main verb’s establishment of secondary sequence.

Why tentative? The entire sentence after promiseramus is in indirect discourse, so yes, including this temporal clause. Since promiseramus is in past time, the sequence of tenses rules determine that the subjunctive in the dependent clauses will be either imperfect or pluperfect. Nitpickily, prohibuisset being in the pluperfect is not relative to the main verb’s establishment of secondary sequence but to the time of the main verb, i.e., the laws prohibiting sacrifices to the devils had been promulgated prior to the time Augustine made the promise.

19

Many thanks to Hylander and Randy for their critiques. It is very good of you to give me this attention.

I need more work before I have this doped out.

Hugh

20

I haven’t looked carefully at the more recent posts, and it may be redundant to refer back to my own post, where I summed up my reading by writing “He’s going to record all the mala he can think of (when he comes to recount them) or at any rate those that he thinks (at the moment) enough to make his point.”
Is this satisfactory, or not?