In Catilinam, second oration

Latin Learning Latin
21

Ille autem, si me hercule hoc quod agit numquam antea cogitasset, tamen latrocinantem se interfici mallet

latrocinor means “to engage in highway robbery”.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.10:581.lewisandshort

volo, nolo and malo take an infinitive complement. Usually the subject of the infinitive is not expressed if it’s the same as the subject of volo/nolo/malo, but here se is expressed. It’s somewhat like the difference between “he would prefer to be killed” and “he would prefer that he be killed”, which really are pragmatically equivalent. Here se is perhaps expressed because it’s modified by the participle latrocinantem, and se is perhaps also needed to anchor exsulem. Without se, latrocinantem would be a little too elliptical, I think. “He would prefer that he be killed while engaging in highway robbery rather than that he live as an exile.” “But even if he had never planned anything before in his life, he would prefer to be killed as a highwayman than to live as an exile.”

Nunc vero, cum ei nihil adhuc praeter ipsius voluntatem cogitationemque acciderit, nisi quod vivis nobis Roma profectus est, optemus potius ut eat in exsilium quam queramur.

Nunc after a contrafactual generally means “as it is” and vero is adversative, reinforcing the shift back to reality: “as it is, however”.

cum nihil adhuc praeter ipsius voluntatem cogitationemque acciderit – since nothing until now has happened to him other than his own will and planning", i.e., since nothing has ever happened to him that was not intentional and planned by him."

vivis nobis is an ablative absolute: vivis is from the adjective vivus, not the verb vivo. And this, not the fact that Catiline has left the city, is the key point of the clause: he didn’t kill everyone before he left.

“But, by God, [even] if he had never previously planned what he is doing, he would nevertheless prefer to be killed in highway robbery rather than live as an exile. As it is, however, since nothing has ever happened to him until now other than what he himself has intended and planned, except that he has left Rome with us [still] alive, let’s hope that he is going into exile rather than complain about it.”

It’s tricky to follow Cicero’s train of thought even when the syntax is clear. But here’s how I understand these sentences in context: Catiline has left Rome, but it’s still unclear whether he has gone into exile at Marseilles or to Manlius’ camp to wage war on Rome (which Cicero refers to as highway robbery). Catiline’s supporters are claiming that Catiline has gone to Marseilles, supposedly out of sympathy for him–the poor man has been driven into exile–but in reality, according to Cicero, they’re afraid that he has gone to Marseilles and deserted them, rather than joining Manlius. But, Cicero says, even if he had never in his entire life planned anything before, his character is such that he would prefer to die fighting rather than live in exile (implying that it’s likely that he went to fight with Manlius rather than to Marseilles). As it is, however, everything he does has been planned and is intentional on his part–except that he hasn’t killed everyone before leaving Rome. So let’s hope he went into exile (instead of joining Manlius to fight against us) rather than complain that he has evaded punishment by doing so.

If I’m mistaken, maybe mwh could correct me if he reads this.

Unlike Catiline, Verres, the corrupt Roman governor of Sicily, evaded punishment by going into exile at Marseilles, where he lived a life of opulent luxury. Later he ironically thanked Cicero for sending him there because the bouillabaise was delicious.

Addendum: personally, I wouldn’t mind being driven into exile at Marseilles, or just about anywhere else in Southern France, expecially during this miserable weather here in DC.

22

I had translated “latrocinantem” as “partisan warfare” because it’s defined that way in the commentary and I overlooked that it was a participle (I had been making more intelligent use of it but I need to look at glossed words more closely); it makes perfect sense now. The commentary, as well as the Wheelock’s Latin Reader notes for In Verrem, suggest that Cicero used the royal “we” quite a bit: I’m not sure where “I” ends and “we” begins (here it’s rather ambiguous) so I guess I may as well just take it as the first-person plural: after all, “we” could mean that he is speaking on behalf of the senators or, as here, the whole people.

I was under the impression that the ablative absolute took a participle: “vivis” is indeed a form of “vivus”; would the understood participle be “being” (otherwise lacking?), then?

Thanks for the interpretation of the train of thought. Perhaps mwh knows more but it makes sense to me.

23

I was under the impression that the ablative absolute took a participle: “vivis” is indeed a form of “vivus”; would the understood participle be “being” (otherwise lacking?), then?

You could think of it that way, but ablative absolutes can occur with adjectives and even nouns.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+419&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001

24

rather than complain that he has evaded punishment by doing so.

optemus potius ut eat in exsilium quam queramur.

Looking at this a second time, I think potius quam queramur is aimed at those who are complaining that Cicero acted with excessive harshness by driving Catiline into exile, not addressed to individuals complaining that by going into exile Catiline has evaded punishment.

25

I think Qimmik has it all right. I’d venture one tiny modification. si me hercule hoc quod agit numquam antea cogitasset: not “even if he had never in his entire life planned anything before” but just if he hadn’t preplanned the action he’s taking—if he hadn’t previously ever even thought of going to join Manlius (which of course he had, at least in Cic’s eyes), he’d rather do that, and die an ignominious death, than live in exile.

As Qimmik noted earlier, Cicero is disingenuous. He has to protect himself against being accused of having driven Cat to join Manlius and so potentially precipitated an attack on Rome, so he acts as if what he has to defend himself against is rather an accusation that he’s driven Cat into exile. So he insists that in leaving Rome Cat has acted of his own volition (though he knows full well that he had driven him out, and in other context he glories in that). And he makes it clear that he’s in no doubt that Cat is on his way to join Manlius, not into exile. (14 is sarcastic.) Nor is anyone else in doubt about it, probably, though Cat’s sympathizers in Rome make out that he may be going to Marseilles, i.e. into exile. That way they can accuse Cic of having driven him into exile (whereas if he’s gone to join Manlius, as he has, they can’t level that accusation). This accusation, whether real or fabricated, is a relatively easy one for Cic to tackle.

optemus etc. The point is that if Cat were in fact on his way into exile, that would be something to be positively welcomed, since the alternative is that he’s on his way to join Manlius and attack Rome. “Let’s hope that he’s going into exile rather than complain that he is."
So to the charge that he’s driven Cat. into exile, he has a number of rejoinders:

  1. I didn’t drive him out, he went of his own accord.
  2. He’s not going into exile anyway, he’s going to join Manlius.
  3. And if he is going to exile, why, that’s a good thing.
    So get off my back. I’m a hero (because I’ve driven him out).
26

Thanks a lot – I’m getting better at connecting sentences logically but I still have a tendency to get lost in the weeds, especially in tracing a common thread over several days’ work.

One class of Catiline’s partisans is rich men with crippling debt:

Quod si maturius facere voluissent neque, id quod stultissimum est, certare cum usuris fructibus praediorum, et locupletioribus his et melioribus civibus uteremur.

(“If they had wanted to do this (sc. auction off their property) more at the proper time and not – it is most foolish – struggle to meet the interest with the profits of their estates, we should find them richer and better citizens.”)

27

I think you got this right. I would translate the parenthetical id quod stultissimum est as “that which is most foolish” or better, “what is most foolish”.

28

Reading 19-20 on breaks:

Another group of Catiline’s partisans are hungry for power, but could not win office in peaceful times:

Quibus hoc praecipiendum videtur, unum scilicet et idem quod reliquis omnibus, ut desperent id quod conantur se consequi posse: primum omnium me ipsum vigilare, adesse, providere rei publicae…

(“It seems that this should be taught to them, in fact one and the same thing to all those staying, so that they despair of being able to acquire that which they attempted: first of all, I myself watch, attend, look out for the Republic…” “Praecipiendum” – passive periphrastic? “Reliquis omnibus” – ablative absolute or just dative?)

Another group is Sulla’s veterans:

Tantus enim illorum temporum dolor inustus est civitati ut iam ista non modo homines sed ne pecudes quidem mihi passurae esse videantur.

(“So great, in fact, was the pain of the time of the proscriptions branded upon the state that not just men but not even cows seem to me to have endured those things.” “Ista” = “those things”? This is a result clause?)

29

Quibus hoc praecipiendum videtur, unum scilicet et idem quod reliquis omnibus, ut desperent id quod conantur se consequi posse: primum omnium me ipsum vigilare, adesse, providere rei publicae…

videtur can be just the passive of video; it can mean “it seems”; or it can mean “it seems appropriate.”

Lewis & Short video 7(c):

c Pregn., videtur (alicui), it seems proper, right, or fit, it seems good to any one; he (she, etc.) pleases, likes.
(a) With dat. of pers.: tibi si videbitur, villis iis utere, quae, etc., Cic. Fam. 14, 7, 3: velim Lentulum puerum visas eique de mancipiis, quae tibi videbitur, attribuas, id. Att. 12, 28, 3: qui imitamur, quos cuique visum est, id. Off. 1, 32, 118: ut consul, quem videretur ei, cum imperio mitteret, qui, etc., Liv. 31, 3, 2; 29, 20, 4: si ei videretur, integram rem ad senatum reiceret, if he pleased, a formula of politeness, Liv. 26, 16, 4 Weissenb. ad loc.; 31, 4, 2: ut, si videretur ei, maturaret venire, id. 34, 46, 5.—
(b) Without dat.: ubi visum est, sub vesperum dispersi discedunt, Caes. B. G. 5, 58: eam quoque, si videtur, correctionem explicabo, Cic. Ac. 1, 9, 35: nunc, si videtur, hoc, illud alias, id. Tusc. 1, 11, 23: M. Num non vis audire, etc.? A. Ut videtur, as you will, id. ib. 1, 32, 77: si videatur, Liv. 6, 25, 2; 26, 22, 7

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.20:842.lewisandshort

reliquis omnibus is dative with praecipiendum understood.

primum omnium could be “first of all” (but it’s the second item in the list, although the first indirect statement) or it could be accusative agreeing with me. The second alternative seems more consistent with Cicero’s sense of self-importance.

"This is what seems appropriate to tell them–obviously, the very same thing that [should be told] to all the rest–that they should give up hope that they can attain what they are trying to [attain]: that foremost of all, I myself am vigilant, I am right here, I am looking after the Republic . . . "

Tantus enim illorum temporum dolor inustus est civitati ut iam ista non modo homines sed ne pecudes quidem mihi passurae esse videantur.

“For so great was the pain of those times burned into the state that it seems to me that not only men but not even cattle would likely endure those things now.” Literally, " . . . that not only men but not even cattle seem to me likely to endure those things . . . " passurae is a future active participle, which can express likelihood.

Yes, the ut clause is a result clause.

30

“Passurae esse” – but of course. I had misread it as “passae esse” for some reason; I had a feeling it was a lot easier than it seemed to me.

Noted about “videtur” + dat; thanks for explaining the “praecipiendum” part. I’m pretty sure that “primum omnium” is “first of all” since it’s followed by a “deinde” clause saying that the citizenry is also numerous and strong-willed, et cetera; I omitted it because it was fairly long and I didn’t have any problems with it (not that I had trouble with “primum omnium…” but I provided it for the sake of context).

Ed: interesting how my concept of “reliquus” mutated. Obviously I learned it correctly at first but it got associated with “relinquere” in my head with the meaning of “left (behind)”, which morphed to “remained/stayed behind”.

31

praecipiendum – maybe “admonish” would capture this word better than just “tell” here.

32

I’ve spent most of this snowy morning reading and as far as I know there’s only one sentence that eludes me, in section 25 (if there’s no work tomorrow I’ll probably be able to knock this oration out by the weekend):

The Romans have superior resources to the conspirators:

(Lengthy list of things which the conspirators lack)…si his rebus omissis causas ipsas quae inter se confligunt contendere velimus, ex eo ipso quam valde illi iaceant intellegere possumus.

(“…if, these things being overlooked, we wish to strive/contend? for the very causes (for?) which (but neuter or fem. singular) they fight among themselves, we can understand from the very comparison that (fem. “quam” = “res”?) which they intensely lie (i.e. in wait) for.”)

I’m making an effort to unravel more complex sentences to some success but I can’t figure this one out. Obviously my translation is wrong because a few words don’t work; the following passage is a long series of comparisons of the motives of the Romans to those of the conspirators (which I guess is what the supplied “from the very comparison” refers to).

33

I’m snowed in, too.

Sed . . . si his rebus omissis causas ipsas quae inter se confligunt contendere velimus, ex eo ipso quam valde illi iaceant intellegere possumus

The key to this passage–and, I think, what threw you off–is that contendere means “compare” here.

Lewis & Short contendo B 3:

(Act.) To place together in comparison, to compare, contrast; constr. with cum, ad, the dat., or acc. only. * * * (d) With acc. only: anulum, Plaut. Fragm. ap. Non. p. 258, 29: ipsas causas, quae inter se confligunt, Cic. Cat. 2, 11, 25: leges, id. Inv. 2, 49, 145: suam quaeque nobilitatem, formam, opes, Tac. A. 12, 1: vetera et praesentia, id. ib. 13, 3

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:4854.lewisandshort

his rebus omissis – abl. abs., “all these things left aside”, or as we would say in English, “leaving all these things aside”, i.e., the material advantages of the anti-Catilinarian forces, which have just been enumerated in a preterition, a characteristically Ciceronian rhetorical device.

causas – “causes” in the sense of the goals and values for the sake of which the two sides are fighting: the republican cause vs. the Catilinarian cause. Having enumerated the material advantages, Cicero turns to the moral advantages.

velimus – this is a potential subjunctive.

ex eo ipso – “from that very {comparison]”, i.e., “from that alone” without taking into account the material advantages.

quam is the adverb “how”, introducing an indirect question here. quam valde illi iaceant – “how securely they lie”, i.e., “how secure their position is”.

“But if, leaving aside all those things, we should wish to compare the causes that are in conflict with one another, from that alone we can understand how secure their position is.”

34

Thanks. If I had found the translation “compare” I probably would have gotten the first part of the sentence, but “quam valde illi iaceant” may have eluded me anyway – I’d have gotten around to the sense of “how” eventually but the definition of “valde” I was working off of is “strongly, vigorously, intensely” rather than “securely”, suggesting “lie in wait” since simply lying down isn’t really something you can do intensely; I could have looked it up again but it’s just a bit too abstract to connect “valde” to a metaphorical/transferred use of “iacere”. The Elementary Latin Dictionary, speaking of this, is supposed to come today.

35

quam valde illi iaceant, lit. “how extremely they are lying," I think will mean something like “what an extremely hopeless position they’re in.” iacere is to be in a lying position, to be prostrate (as at the beginning of the speech), overthrown, left without a leg to stand on, that sort of thing, and valde is little more than an intensifier. Such are their vices that they’re beaten before they begin.

velimus – this is definitely, unambiguously and incontrovertibly a potential subjunctive.

In a conditional clause?

36

I need to stop spreading misinformation. I’m really not qualified to be doing this.

37

I’m sure I’d make many more slips than Qimmik if I answered all the questions he does. Don’t anyone go doubting his reliability.

38

Don’t sweat it. On balance you’re a tremendous help and my Latin has improved thanks to you, even if you make the occasional misstep.

39

Sed si vis manifestae audaciae, si impendens patriae periculum me necessario de hac animi lenitate deduxerit, illud profecto perficiam quod in tanto et tam insidioso bello vix optandum videtur, ut neque bonus quisquam intereat paucorumque poena vos omnes salvi esse possitis.

“But if the force of manifest audacity, if the overhanging danger of the country will have made it necessary for me to abandon this mercy (tenderness of spirit), I will bring it about that in so great and so treacherous a war that seems scarcely to be hoped for (chosen?), that each good man not be destroyed and by the penalty of a few you all may be saved.”)

It’s really just a few words that are throwing me off, and I can’t find anything to agree with “profecto”. “Bello”?.

profecto is an adverb – “certainly”.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.14:5332.lewisandshort

vis connotes violence.

impendens patriae periculum – patriae is dative, the complement of impendens.

deduxerit – best translate this as a present tense in English. Latin uses future perfect in the protasis of a future condition if the protasis is to occur before the apodosis, but idiomatic English generally uses the present tense.

neque bonus quisquam pereat – “that not any good man should perish”, i.e., “that no good man should perish”.

poena – here, “punishment”

But if the force/violence of manifest audacity, if the danger hanging over the fatherland necessarily leads me down/away from this lenient attitude [literally, “lenience of mind/spirit”; the English cognates “lenience/lenient” work well here], I will certainly bring about what [illud . . . quod, “that which”] in so great and so treacherous a war scarcely seems possible to hope for [literally, “to be hoped for”]: that no good man should perish and that all of you may be [kept] safe by means of/through the punishment of a few."

“will have made it necessary for me to abandon” – this seems to me a good, if not literal, translation for necesssario deduxerit into idiomatic English, though I would suggest “makes” for “will have made”.