While I believe I have a satisfactory meaning for this sentence, I don’t know how to explain the verb tenses/moods with respect to removeris, which I read as perfect subjunctive, videantur, which I read as present subjunctive, and the future active infinitive sensuri esse.
Context: Reviewing the political situation at present, Cicero asserts that there is no basic political conflict between the aristocrats and the masses of citizens. Political troubles result from discontented aristocrats who pack meetings with paid voters.
Nunc, nisi me fallit, in eo statu civitas est, ut, si operas conductorem removeris, omnes idem de republica sensuri esse videantur.
Translation, Cicero speaking in his own voice:
Now, if I mistake not, the political situation is such that if you removed the work of these paid political operatives, the citizenry would most probably all develop the same political feelings.
removeris is future perfect, not perfect subjunctive.
The ut clause is a result clause. It takes a subjunctive verb, videantur. Unlike a subordinate clause in indirect discourse or in a purpose clause, the si clause isn’t part of mental processes attributed to someone other than the speaker or writer, and so the si clause doesn’t require the subjunctive.
Instead, what we have here is a future condition. The apodosis is sensuri esse (or sensuri esse videantur). In a Latin future condition (unlike English), if the verb of the protasis happens before the verb of the apodosis, the verb of the protasis must be future perfect indicative, and the verb of the protasis will usually be future indicative. With videantur, the verb of the apodosis is a future infinitive, but it functions just like a future indicative in the apodosis of a future condition.
Literal translation: “Now, unless I’m mistaken, the state is in such a situation that if you get rid of the work of the political operatives, everyone seems to be going to have the same opinion regarding the republic.”
Better: “. . . in such a situation that, if you get rid of the work of the political operatives, it seems that everyone is going to/will have the same opinion regarding the republic”
Or: “. . . in such a situation that it looks like/as if everyone will have the same opinion regarding the republic if you get rid of the work of the political operatives.”
I’m wondering if this is simply a mixed condition, the equivalent of a future more vivid, but with the ut clause substituting for the expected apodosis?
Nunc, nisi me fallit, in eo statu civitas est, ut, si operas conductorum [spelling error corrected] removeris, omnes idem de republica sensuri esse videantur.
Let me test my understanding of Hylander’s analysis. I need to get this straight before reviewing the grammar. We have here a result clause:
omnes idem de republica sensuri esse videantur.
And this result clause does double duty, as the apodosis of a future conditional sentence, the protasis being:
si operas conductorum removeris
My “conductorem” was a typing error which I failed to spot. Usually I cut-and-paste from Perseus, but this time I pecked it out.
On future perfect v. perfect subjunctive removeris: I attempted a reading with future perfect, but the grammar was beyond me.
The apodosis is strictly speaking the future infinitive sensuri esse.
It’s generally not a good idea to disturb Cicero’s word order, but simply to show the levels of subordination:
_ut omnes videantur
\
idem de re publica sensuri esse
\
si operas conductorum removeris_
(You have to get rid of the political operatives before everyone will think alike.)
If the conditional were not embedded in a result clause, Cicero might have written: Si operas conductorum removeris, omnes idem de republica sentient.Si + future perfect, future indicative.
If Cicero wanted to make the result clause a more positive statement, without videantur, I suppose he might have written ut, si operas conductorum removeris, omnes idem de republica sensuri sint, using a periphrastic future subjunctive verb to complete the apodosis of the future conditional, where the apodosis is a result clause requiring a subjunctive.
As it is, he uses a periphrastic future infinitive in the apodosis, after videantur. In each of these cases, he needs a future tense verb, whether indicative, subjunctive or infinitive, to complete the apodosis of the future conditional.
This is where actual usage of the language by a skilled native speaker can defy our attempts to categorize it (and why grammars never in fact are able to tell the whole story, and academicians can continue to write scholarly articles). I think it’s better view the entire clause as the apodosis, since sensuri esse is complementary to videantur. Mixed and partial conditions really are a thing in the language, and this is one example.
I’m sure you know this, but to be thorough the future or future perfect in the protasis of a future more vivid construction is translated in English as a present tense (because that’s the way we do it in English).
I think it’s better view the entire clause as the apodosis, since sensuri esse is complementary to videantur.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference, but logically the conditional is: “if you get rid of the political operatives, everyone will agree”, not "if you get rid of the political operatives, everyone seems . . . " si removeris is subordinate to sensuri esse, not videatur. This is a straightforward future conditional (future more vivid, if you like).
True enough – regardless of how the construction is conceptualized in our meta-language, the meaning and rendering of it remains the same. But the grammatical elephant in the room is the fact that you don’t have a main verb for the apodosis outside of the ut clause, but within it, and that sensuri esse is not coordinate, but subordinate as a complementary infinitive. That means that yes, effectively the ut clause replaces the apodosis. So a mixed partial condition it is.
Ah, I think I see what you are arguing, that the protasis is itself in the result clause, that the entire conditional statement is so subordinated. Hmmm… Okay, it we want to express it using the identical vocabulary as a straightforward future more vivid we would have:
si operas conductorum removeris, omnes idem de republica sentire videbuntur…
Right? Wouldn’t it be the main verb which would have to go into the future?
That makes sense, and it also means it’s not a mixed condition. Since C. put into a result clause, the only way really to express the futurity is through the future active infinitive. Okay, I think I’m now on the same page.
Still not quite there Barry. I think what may be confusing you is the fact that the si clause is the protasis not of videantur, the main verb of the ut clause, but of the infinitive sensuri esse within that clause. There’s nothing particularly unusual about having an if-clause depend on an infinitive or a participle.
If it weren’t all in the result clause, it would simply be
si operas removeris, omnes idem sensuri esse videntur.
You could replace sensuri esse videntur with plain sentient, and the si clause would be subordinate to that:
si operas removeris, omnes idem sentient (= sensuri sunt ~ eandem sententiam habebunt).
Here’s an analogous pair of sentences:
Te amabo si me amaveris.
Videor te amaturus esse si me amaveris.
The si clause is not the protasis of videor.
I hope that clears it up. There’s no “mixed” condition, and no “partial” condition either (I don’t actually know what’s meant by that, but no matter).
A partial condition simply means that either protasis or apodosis is left unexpressed. Let me ask you this: what is videantur doing in the sentence? Why can’t the protasis be taken with it? What is it about the syntax that leads you to say that it must be taken with sensuri esse?
what is videantur doing in the sentence? Why can’t the protasis be taken with it? What is it about the syntax that leads you to say that it must be taken with sensuri esse?
Think of the logic here.
The condition–the protasis–is getting rid of the machinations of the political operatives, si removeris. The state of affairs that will come about if the condition is satisfied–the apodosis–is: everyone will be in agreement, omnes idem sensuri.
removeris is future perfect; the apodosis must be an event/state of affairs that will occur after the protasis in the future, i.e., sensuri esse.
videantur qualifies the conditional si removeris . . . sensuri esse, signaling that it seems to be true. In English we would generally use an impersonal construction: “it appears that/looks like if you get rid of . . . then everyone will be in agreement.” You could do something like this in Latin, too: ut, si removeris . . . , ut videtur, omnes sensuri sint. (This would be somewhat awkward in Latin because you would have to resort to the little used periphrastic future subjunctive.) But Latin idiom allows you to attach videantur to the subject of sensuri and make the apodosis of the conditional an infinitive complement of videantur. That is what is somewhat confusing to us Anglophones.
Barry, I can’t quite fathom what your continued difficulty with this is, after Hylander’s previous explanations. Take that pair of sentences I offered, “te amabo si me amaveris” and “videor te amaturus esse si me amaveris.” Do you not see that the if-clause does not apply to videor but to te amaturus esse?
Thanks for telling me what’s meant by a “partial condition”—either of two different things, apparently, which need to be distinguished from one another. If the apodosis is unexpressed, that’s just a grammatically incomplete sentence. The condition itself (the protasis) is not partial. If on the other hand the protasis is unexpressed, i.e. if there’s no if-clause, then we simply have a main clause, not a conditional. Perhaps you’re thinking of use of potential subjunctive, cf. English “I wouldn’t say that.” or “I wouldn’t have thought so.” In such cases we’re free to “understand” an if-clause, e.g. “if I were you” or whatever, but the syntax is complete without one. I suppose we could speak of a potential condition, but not a partial one. So in either case I don’t think the term has any real validity.
Well, to be honest, your opinion on the validity of the terminology is irrelevant. If you find it helpful, then good. If not, then disregard it, and find different metalanguage to discuss the phenomenon. Your and Hylander’s explanations are clear and helpful in expressing your conceptualization of the grammar. What I find difficult is the presence of videantur. You and H. are treating as though it’s a modal that is subordinate or supplementary to sensuri esse, whereas I see it as the main verb of the apodosis to which sensuri esse is complementary, and to which the protasis is actually subordinate. Cicero uses this language and construction for a reason, suggesting that a seeming possibility is not an actual possibility, and I think your approach somewhat lessens that emphasis. That’s fine, however, and I’m ready to move on, but I very much appreciate the discussion.
Sorry to prolong this, Barry, but I just think you’re wrong about not only the syntactic structure but also the thrust of the sentence.
Syntactic structure: My view, and I think that of mwh, too, is not that videantur is subordinate to the conditional. The entire conditional is subordinate to videantur.
Meaning:
Cicero uses this language and construction for a reason, suggesting that a seeming possibility is not an actual possibility,
No, he’s not suggesting that the seeming possibility is not an actual possibility. He’s suggesting that the conditional appears in fact to be the case. With videantur he’s admitting that he’s speculating, but saying that from his perspective, the conditional appears to be true and valid.
You could translate videantur, without precisely following the Latin syntax word for word, as “apparently,” or perhaps “it looks like.”
“The state is in such a situation that, if you just get rid of the machinations of the political operatives, it looks like/apparently everyone will be in agreement regarding the republic.”
“… that everyone appears to be going to be in agreement if you just get rid of the machinations of the political operatives.”
For now we’ll have to “agree to disagree.” At some time when I’m done with my current projects in the Catilinarian orations and Lucian, I may have another read through the Pro Sestio for a fresh look.