I never understood Wheelock’s differentiation of iste and ille, but took
them to mean this:
Iste is used abstractly, such as “That’s a good idea,” or “How can you say that?”
Ille is used physically/concretely, such as “See that mountain over there?” or “Bring me that book.”
Am I right?
Gratias ago
CAVEAT LECTOR–
I have always established a parallel between those and the Portuguese (and I assume Spanish etc) correspondents. They are both demonstrative, deictic.
iste refering to the “esse”-- “that thing to which you are related; that of yours; that thing near you”
ille refering to the “aquele” – “that thing which is near neither of us, to which we hold no special relation to”
– wow. deja vu. did I write a post like this sometime ago?
see A&G 297 for a concise account of the difference between the two.
I agree with ille meaning a thing or person that is far away (concerning time or place) from both the speaker and the person spoken to.
iste, however, does not only mean “this”, it often has a negative connotation, too. For example, if Cicero refers to his arch-enemy Catilina as “Iste Catilina!”, he wants to express that he does not like Catilina very much 
It’s the same in English, isn’t it, when you refer to someone with ‘that’ attached to it? That John, he’s nothing but trouble.
ille, on the other hand, has positive connotations. “ille Alexander” – “the famous Alexander”; “that Alexander [which we all know]”
iste, however, does not only mean “this”, it often has a negative connotation, too. For example, if Cicero refers to his arch-enemy Catilina as “Iste Catilina!”, he wants to express that he does not like Catilina very much iste, however, does not only mean “this”, it often has a negative connotation, too. For example, if Cicero refers to his arch-enemy Catilina as “Iste Catilina!”, he wants to express that he does not like Catilina very much
Cicero would use “iste Catilina” because Catilina was present at the senate house during the delivery of Cicero’s invective against him and it is very likely that “iste Catilina” would be uttered by pointing his finger at Catilina. These pronouns (iste-ista-istud and ille-illa-illud) are demonstrative as well as anaphoric and they related to portuguese este-esta-isto (near the speaker or the person addressed) and aquele-aquela-aquilo (distant from the adresser and the addresee).
ille Alexander, on the other hand, is used because Alexander is distant in the past, not because there is any positive meaning in ille. I could also say “ille homo morbosus, qui fratrem meum interfecit, nunc mortus est et ad inferos descendit.”
Are you saying that there is no derogatory sense in iste Catilina?
Roberte, have you heard of honorific ille? It’s quite standard, and in these examples cannot be explained away by spacial or temporal distance:
Tune ille Aeneas, quem Dardanio Anchisae
alma Venus Phrygii genuit Simoentis ad undam? (Vergil.Aen.I.617-8.)
ego sum ille rex Philippus (Plautus.Aulularia.704)
Adler notes that in spoken Latin Iste must be used with great care, as it is derogatory.
Metrodorus
Sorry if I sounded too dogmatic.
Yes, you’re right, “iste” may sound derrogatory, even in Romance languages (particularly in Portuguese and Spanish), but it is not its primary meaning so one must be carefull not to translate it always with a negative or, in the case of ille, a positive meaning. It is just like we say “you fool!” or “such idiot” or “Churchil, that hero of the resistence”. Cf. specially Petr. 46.1 for a derrogatory colloquial meaning of iste: “Quid iste argutat molestus?” where “iste” is put in the mouth of a rustic peasant and meant to sound vulgar.
But certainly it is not the case with Catilina, where it is clearly deictic, let alone because it would be inapropriate (indecorosus) for one senator to adress another with a derogatory iste, in which case could mean smth. like “this wretch here”.
While I agree with the substance of your message, I don’t know if Cicero was too concerned about degrading Catilina (or Marcus Antonius), seeing as he publicly demands Catilina ought to be killed immediately, and goes to great length to describe him as a vile debauched wretch, a menace to humanity, and an all around unpleasant fellow.
I don’t know if Cicero was too concerned about degrading Catilina (or Marcus Antonius), seeing as he publicly demands Catilina ought to be killed immediately
I guess Cicero could make his point quite clear without having to lower the level of his speech or treat a senator without the proper decorum, as if he was addressing a greengrocer. In a trial, one can ask for a traitor’s death without offending him personally (which would be an ad hominem argument). Rhetorically speaking using colloquialisms to debase an opponent would bring the accuser to an identical, if not lower, level.