Context: Cicero defends his project of carrying over into Latin discourse, with his own additions and in his own arrangement, topics much discussed in Greek philosophy. Some say, “Well let’s just read the Greeks, in their own language; we don’t need any Latin writings on this.” Cicero interrogates this objection.
nam si dicent ab illis has res esse tractatas, ne ipsos quidem Graecos est cur tam multos legant, quam legendi sunt.
Here goes my translation effort: For while they say these subjects (has res) were taken from them [Greek authors], they don’t explain why they read even as many (quidem . . . tam multos) of these Greek authors as (_quam)_they are expected to read (legendi sunt)
I’m not sure I get the force of Cicero’s argument, but I think it’s something like this: If cultured Romans have to read many books in Greek on philosophy, then there should be room for some books in Latin on the same subjects, such a book in Latin being the very one in which Cicero inscribes this argument.
I think ‘legendi’ here as the meaning of possibility, ‘as many as it is possible to read/as many as are available’.
‘non est cur’ > litt. ‘there is not why…’ > ‘There is no reason why…’
‘For if they say that this subjects have already been dealt with by Greek authors, this doesn’t even explain why they read as many of those Greek authors as it is possible to read.’
Isn’t it rather “For if they say (lit. will say) that these matters have been already treated by the Greeks, then there’s no reason for them to read even as many Greek authors as are to be read”?
Greeks themselves have dealt with the same subjects as earlier Greeks, yet these later Greeks are themselves (ipsi) also [according to the anti-latinists’ own position] to be read. The argument is that it’s illogical to read Greeks on subjects previously treated by Greeks while refusing to read Latin authors on subjects previously treated by them. Or that’s how I read it.
Yes you’re right about legendi. It seems the antilatinists and Cicero both agree the Greek authors are to be read (have to be read). It’s as if there’s an agreed-upon curriculum. Cicero points out the irrationality of the antilatinists’ position vis-à-vis Greek versus Latin: if they don’t deign to read Latin authors on matters already dealt with by Greeks, why do they insist on reading all the Greek works on the curriculum (instead of reading just the first to deal with the subject)? legendi like all gerundives is passive not active: they have to be read.
dicent is fut.indic. “If they (will) say …, (then it’s irrational of them to …)”
Pres.subj. would be dicant, and mean “If they were to say …” The fut.indic. is more vivid: Cic is imagining (for the sake of answering the point) that they will say that.
legant is (pres.) subj. as being in an indirect question. The ind.q. is introduced by cur.
The very unEnglish word order of the main clause makes it look strange. “not even Greeks themselves (accusative, object of legant, in concord with the upcoming tam multos) is there why they should read so many …”
legant and indirect question: I must review indirect questions.
agreed-upon curriculum. I have the impression that in each historical epoch in a literate society there is a canon of necessary books for those who wish to be considered cultivated.
the sentence in general. I thought I had a satisfactory English meaning, but I found it difficult to link to link the specific phrases of the Latin to that English. That Latin sentence still seems to slip away from me when I look away from it.
Not much to review, basically indicative → subjunctive: cur tam multos legunt? → non est cur tam multos legant.
Greek is easier here, no change of mood.
I had difficulty with this sentence as well. The background knowledge of what he means by “so many of the Greeks themselves” is necessary to get his point. It only made sense to me after mwh shared that. Basically, if all you need are the “originals”, then that is all you need, whether in Greek or Latin.