nec dubitet quin tanti facinoris reus
arguatur ut eo neglecto civitas stare non possit.
Cic. Pro Caelio
Of what action or state of being is this “ut” clause expressing the result? Can result clauses express the results of an attribute such as “tanti”?
of arguatur. he is saying that, if you allow me some (not exact) barbarism, should the accusation of so great a crime be neglected, the citizens could not be apathetic. [closing the barbarism mode, here a litteral translation: nor would he doubt that the deffendant is being accused of so great a crime, that, being it (the accusation, the averiguation of the cause) neglected, the population could not be inert.] he is expanding what he had just said on account of the case, that it was so atrocious that all activities of the city were closed bla bla bla. indeed the criminal process had not been tried yet for the a proven crime to cause such a stir. as for tanti, i dont know, couldnt say why not, nor can i justify by a example.
cheers!
But I think the “eo” in the ablative absolute is referring to the crime, not the accusation thereof. Cicero is saying that, because the crime is so great, it must not be neglected. The consecutive clause, then, seems to express the result of the magnitude of the crime of which he is accused,i.e. “… he is accused of a crime so great that, with it being neglected, the commonwealth could not stand,” but it seems to me that, if this were true, “tanti” would need to be predicate so that the consecutive clause could express the result of the crime “being so great.”
it seems to me that, if this were true, “tanti” would need to be predicate so that the consecutive clause could express the result of the crime “being so great”
Can an adjective be ‘predicate’?
Cicero seems to be saying: ‘From all the fuss, a stranger might get the impression that … the defendant were being accused of such a (great) crime (reus arguatur tanti facinoris) that the very state would collapse if it were ignored’. C. is sending up the prosecution. It’s a trumped-up charge, obviously, blown up out of all proportion.
My Latin-Swedish dictionary says: arguere alqm alcis rei (summi sceleris) = accuse s.o. of s.th.
Wheelock (3rd edition) says: Often in the clause preceding the result clause there is a sign word which indicates that a result clause is to follow. Such sign words are tam (so), ita (so), tantus, -a, -um (so great). He gives the examples:
Tanta fecit ut urbem servâret = He did such great things that he saved the city.
Hoc tantâ benevolentiâ dîxit ut eos non offenderet = He said this with such great kindness that he did not offend them.
Where’s the problem?
See also text + translation:
http://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2280/caetext1.htm
Cheers,
Int
In your two examples, the consecutive clause expresses the result of the action of the main verb, whereas in my example it does not: The inability of the state to stand is solely the result of the extent of the alleged crime. Of what action or state of being is the “ut” clause expressing the result?
I do not think that the consecutive clause expresses the result of the act of accusing, for how is the result of accusing Caelius that the State cannot stand? Cicero is endeavoring to hyperbolize the gravitas of the accusation by expressing the result of its extent, if I am correct. The only problem with this is that there is no verb present to express the result of unless “tanti” is taken as a predicate adjective or unless consecutive clauses can express the natural result of an attribute. I do not know whether either of these are possible.
for how is the result of accusing Caelius that the State cannot stand?
with the result clause there is a ablative absolute that clarifies: if this be neglected (the accusation, as i have previously said) the state wouldnt stand longer. the accusation because it is very grave must needs be verified. the whole result clause is eo neglecto civitas stare no possit, if the absolute be ignored it will indeed make no sense.
Cicero is endeavoring to hyperbolize the gravitas of the accusation by expressing the result of its extent,
that is indeed what he is doing. as he says, in the vision of a stranger, the cause was so atrocious as to stop all activities, was so im´portatn as to be the only one to be judged, and now he completes, the accusation is so grave that, ignored, the state wouldnt last longer.
The only problem with this is that there is no verb present to express the result of unless “tanti” is taken as a predicate adjective or unless consecutive clauses can express the natural result of an attribute. I do not know whether either of these are possible.
indeed he has not written facinoris quod tantum est ut. the predication of the sentence is made on account of the “reus” not of facinoris.
Please ignore my previous post. My brain had left the room. 
I agree with your analysis, Tertius Robertus, except that it seems to me the UT clause hinges on the TANTUM FACINUS (embedded in its genitive form), not the REUS. In ‘eo neglecto’, it’s the FACINUS that needs to be dealt with, isn’t it? And the tantus,-a, -um is a required part of the syntactical algorithm, no?
Though I’ve been wrong before …
Cheers,
Int
except that it seems to me the UT clause hinges on the TANTUM FACINUS (embedded in its genitive form), not the REUS. In ‘eo neglecto’, it’s the FACINUS that needs to be dealt with, isn’t it? And the tantus,-a, -um is a required part of the syntactical algorithm, no?
it is indeed dependent on meanig of the tantis facinoris which is what introduces the consecution of the event. i am merely pointing out that there is no predication in this sentence is not on facinoris rather on reus. [he is not saying “facinus est tantum ut” as v.t. has understood. for the result to be support on the crime] i am thinking of this eo as it/this, the thing just said. like augusto imperante tertium janua clausa est, id quod per septingentos annos bis tantum evenit. as i said previously, they are there to judge whether the crime happened ot not, to say that it can be neglected, is to assume that it have happened, but he has just treated the crime as an accusation. tantus in itself is not recquired of course, but rather a adjective or a adverb to indicate the gravity of the accusation tam magni facinoris, ita arguatur, etc. we are saying the very same things
I thought that consecutive clauses had to express the result of a state of being or action. I am not disagreeing with you; I just find the construction interesting.
the reign of Augustus, for a/the third time, the gate was closed, which (had) happened only twice in 700 years
but that is precisely what i meant. the third time did happened in augustus’ reign afterall. 
and no, tertium cant mean thrice.
Thanks for clearing that up! 
Cheers,
Int