Hey guys, good morning, I’d like to know why in this excerpt of Cicero’s Pro archia , "Census nostros requiris scilicet. Est enim obscurum proximis censoribus hunc cum clarissimo imperatore L. Lucullo apud exercitum fuisse" write he hunc? Is this “hunc” accusative of which verb ? obs : hunc = archias. Thanks.
This is indirect statement set up by obscurum est. Hunc is the accusative subject of the infinitive fuisse.
The verb sum don’t set up accusative subject. Hunc fuisse is subject of obscurum est. Why he write “hunc” and not hic ?
May I assume that your first language is not English? Notice that I did not say that “sum” sets up indirect statemen. By itself it does not. But combined with "obscurum’ It does. So “For it is obscure that at the most recent censors he was in the army with the most famous general Lucius Lucillus…” Now that’s horrible English – we would want something more like “It’s not too well known that at the time of the most recent censors he was in the army with the very prestigious general Lucius Lucillus” – but hopefully it will help you see the structure and why hunc.
I understand what you said. But I didn’t know that “est obscurum” required the accusative. If the verb was “scio” ( in this case ‘censores non sciunt hunc’) it would make more sense. So why didn’t Cicero write “censores non sciunt hunc fuisse”? It seems to me that the infinitive clauses that function as the subject of a predicate take subject in the accusative (“ impossibile est sedentem ambulare”) and I’m asking hopefully why this occurs. Maybe my question was not clear. Obs : you are right, the English is not my first language. Thanks for your answer anyway.
I don’t usually answer questions here, but this question made me review Allen and Greenough on indirect discourse.
In my opinion, “est obscurum” falls under Allen and Greenough’s principle that
[] 579. Verbs and other expressions of knowing, thinking, telling, and perceiving,1 govern the Indirect Discourse.
[] Note.-- Inquam, said I (etc.) takes the Direct Discourse except in poetry.Declaratory Sentences in Indirect Discourse
1 Such are: (1) knowing, sciō , cōgnōscō , compertum habeō , etc.; (2) thinking, putō , exīstimō , arbitror , etc.; (3) telling, dīcō , nūntiō , referō , polliceor , prōmittō , certiōrem faciō , etc.; (4) perceiving, sentiō , comperiō , videō, audiō, etc. So in general any word that denotes thought or mental and visual perception or their expression may govern the Indirect Discourse.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D579
Especially note this: “in general any word that denotes thought or mental and visual perception or their expression may govern the Indirect Discourse.” So, as I see it, the expression “est obscurum” allows a complement in indirect discourse.
Farther down we read:
a. The verb of saying etc. is often not expressed, but implied in some word or in the general drift of the sentence:—
Hope this helps.
Ok,Thanks for your answer hlawson38 and Barry Hofstetter.