Saepe enim de L. Crasso illo familiari tuo videor audisse, cum te togatis omnibus sine dubio anteferret, paucos tecum Epicureos e Graecia compararet, sed, quod ab eo te mirifice diligi intellegebam, arbitrabar illum propter benivolentiam uberius id dicere. (Cic. Nat. 1.58)
Shouldn’t compararet be something like “se comparare”
Hi Nesrad,
No doubt someone more knowledgeable will show up but meanwhile…
Also here, p. 465, §III (b).
You could make a case for eum comparavisse (not se), but here I think we should keep the imperfect subjunctive: since the subject is the same as the previous clause (cum te … anteferret) there seems to have been a normal case of attraction, where a verb (or noun) takes a construction ad sensum rather than the one that would be grammatically expected.
I think that compararet is parallel to anteferret, with ayndeton (i.e., no conjunction). compararet is not part of an indirect statement. The object of audisse, in my interpretation, would be understood as something like id, which comes in the next sentence (uberius id dicere), referring to the praise Cotta lavishes on his addressee at the end of this section – building up to and cushioning sharp criticism of his addressee’s views in the next section, leves, ineptas sententias – and which is the same as what he heard about his addressee from Crassus: de re obscura atque difficili a te dictum esse dilucide, neque sententiis solum copiose sed verbis etiam ornatius quam solent vestri (or else, looking back to 57, understood quid de te ipso L.Crassus sentiret).
“It seems to me I often heard it from your close friend L. Crassus, since he undoubtedly held you in higher esteem than any of the Romans [togatis] [and] used to compare you to a small number of the Greek Epicureans” but I thought that was just exaggeration, knowing his extraordinary affection for you. But I really do think you spoke very clearly about an obscure and difficult topic, and not just with more abundant ideas but also with more verbal elegance than those of your persuasion usually do.
The asyndeton anteferret/compararet sharpens the Roman/Greek antithesis in the two cum clauses, and the antithesis makes a conjunction unnecessary.
vestri, I would guess, refers to Epicureans.
I think that this explanation (via asyndeton) is better than the one I had above. I’m reading the intermediate clause with the cum historicum “cum . . . anteferret” as concessive rather than temporal, which is possible but maybe not as likely.
I don’t think cum is “concessive”; it’s merely “circumstantial” here. It’s not “although” he preferred/compared.
Cotta seems to be a radical skeptic.
Or maybe this should be interpreted: “It seems to me I heard about L. Crassus, when he without hesitation held you in higher esteem . . . [and] was comparing you to . . . .” In any event, compararet is not part of an indirect statement.
Are you saying that id dicere is the object of both audisse and arbitrabar?
My suggestion is that the object of audisse is just an understood id or hoc, not id dicere, I heard it from Crassus.
Alternatively audisse could be intransitive, I heard about Crassus, when he was placing you higher esteem all other Romans (again, togatis) [and] comparing you to a small number of Greeks.
Or else something like de te is to be understood with audisse from the preceding section, I heard about you from Crassus (but de te itself would leave two instances of de with different meanings in the same clause, which would be inelegant and confusing).
In any case, compararet is parallel to a_nteferret_ in a circumstantial cum clause, without a coordinating conjunction, balancing Romans and Greeks. Compararet is not in indirect discourse.
Well that’s a question of interpretation, isn’t it? Eum comparare would mean: I heard him compare, and Se comparare would mean: I heard him saying that he compares. I think the latter is what C is saying here, no?
I heard him saying that he compares. I think the latter is what C is saying here, no?
Not exactly. compararet is not in indirect discourse. compararet is introduced one of two clauses introduced by cum. “when he [Crassus] without hesitation held you in higher esteem than all the Romans [togatis] [and] compared you with a small number of Greek Epicureans.” The Roman/Greek antithesis makes this clear.
There are several ways to interpret saepe enim de L. Crasso illo familiari tuo videor audisse, as I suggested above, but cum te togatis omnibus sine dubio anteferret, paucos tecum Epicureos e Graecia compararet, is a pair of cum clauses, directly dependent on audisse: I heard it from him, or I heard about him, when . . .
You’re right in saying that the cum clause is not grammatically indirect discourse, but I think the meaning is one of indirect discourse, else “de L. Crasso videor audisse” would make no sense. Nor would an implicit id/hoc/illud make any sense: why would Crassus himself say that he’s exaggerating because he holds his friend in high esteem? The speaker is the one saying that Crassus was exaggerating.
I believe the correct meaning is: I seem to remember Crassus telling me that he considered you the best Roman Epicurean, and that you were surpassed by few Greeks. But I knew that he was very fond of you, so I thought he was exaggerating.
The meaning seems clear enough, but the syntax is puzzling. I’ve never seen cum clauses used for indirect discourse.
I think this is the answer to my question. In the link provided by Shenoute, we have:
(b) After audire, cum is temporal and construed regularly with the Subjunctive. The Mood is to be explained as Oratio Obliqua.
Ex.—L. Flaccum ego audivi cum diceret Caeciliam Metelli… exisse in quoddam sacellum ominis capiendi causa, etc, Cic, Div., I, 46, 104. Equidem e Cn. Aufidio, oculis capto, saepe audiebam, cum se lucis magis quam utilitatis desiderio moveri diceret, Cic, Fin., V, 19, 54. Saepe de familiari illo videor audisse. cum te togatis omnibus sine dubio anteferret, Cic, N. D., I, 21, 58. Hoc dicam, quod ostendam, multos ex te viros audisse, cum diceres ignosci tibi oportere, Cic, Verr., I, 61,157.
Or maybe this should be interpreted: “It seems to me I heard about L. Crassus, when he without hesitation held you in higher esteem . . . [and] was comparing you to . . . .”
This is surely right. There’s no need to understand id or anything else. “I think I’ve often heard about Crassus when he …”, tantamount to “I think I’ve often heard about when Crassus …”.
mwh sets us straight, but I would like to add something about the linked material.
After audire, cum is temporal and construed regularly with the Subjunctive. The Mood is to be explained as Oratio Obliqua.
This doesn’t make sense. In all of the examples cited, the cum clause isn’t part of what was said; rather the cum clause is circumstantial – it expresses the circumstances surrounding the verb audire – and the cum clause itself includes a verb of saying or implies such a verb. To be sure, the cum clause functions as if it were indirect discourse, but it isn’t grammatically indirect discourse. I’m in agreement with this:
the cum clause is not grammatically indirect discourse, but I think the meaning is one of indirect discourse
But I don’t think the linked explanation of the subjunctive is correct. It’s simply a circumstantial cum clause, not a temporal one.
The cum clauses are simply circumstantial, but the authors of the grammar are grasping for an explanation of what they think are temporal cum clauses, which in their view should have an indicative verb.
See A&G 546:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D546
Yes, that does make sense, it would be the simplest explanation.
Would anyone happen to have a Loeb handy?
I got this from an old Loeb available here:
I have often heard that friend of yours [Lucius Crassus] declare that of all the Roman adherents of Epicureanism he placed you unquestionably first, and that few of those from Greece could be ranked beside you; but knowing his extraordinary esteem for you, I imagined that he was speaking with the partiality of a friend.
While I agree with mhw, my first reflex was the same as this translator’s. There’s something about this sentence that says indirect discourse, but now I can’t explain what. Perhaps I was expecting a qui clause if this were to be understood the way mhw suggests: de Crasso saepe audivi, qui anteferret…
The translator has smoothed the slight difficulty to make it read better in English. But you’re right that the cum clauses are equivalent to indirect discourse.
Or he messed up like me 
And me.
And me. 