Oratio in Catilinam IV

Latin Learning Latin
1

I meant to take two days off but couldn’t stay away for that long. I’ve been stuck on two sentences which each have two finite verbs; I think I may have figured one of them out but I’m out to sea on the other.

Nunc si hunc exitum consulatus mei di immortales esse voluerunt ut … eriperem, quaecumque mihi uni proponetur fortuna subeatur.

(“Now if the immortal gods wanted the end of my consulship to be that I … snatched away (the people/city from destruction), then whatever fortune that would be undergone would have been shown to me alone.” This is very rough but I may have some idea.)

Etenim si P. Lentulus suum nomen inductus a vatibus fatale ad perniciem rei publicae fore putavit, cur ego non laeter meum consulatum ad salutem populi Romani prope fatalem exstitisse?

(This is the one I can’t get my head around. What makes the most sense is “and if in fact Lentulus was induced (by his name) from the seers to the destruction of the Republic…” but we have “fore putavit”. By the reading that makes more sense “suum nomen” would be ablative, anyway. “If Lentulus thought his name would be…” which is where I lose it. It seems to be two separate sentences jammed together. The indirect statement in the second half is with “laetari”?)

2

Nunc si hunc exitum consulatus mei di immortales esse uoluerunt ut … eriperem, quaecumque mihi uni proponetur fortuna subeatur.

You need to pay attention to the verb forms here.

uoluerunt is perfect.

eriperem is subjunctive–a result clause.

proponetur is future – “set before” or “determined”.

subeatur is subjunctive.

“If [i.e., given that] the immortal gods have willed this conclusion for my consulship, [namely] that I snatched [the entire community from destruction], let whatever fortune/fate will be set in front of me alone/determined for me alone be endured.” " . . . let me endure whatever fortune . . . "

Etenim si P. Lentulus suum nomen inductus a uatibus fatale ad perniciem rei publicae fore putauit, cur ego non laeter meum consulatum ad salutem populi Romani prope fatalem exstitisse?

“And what’s more, if P. Lentulus, led on by soothsayers, thought that his name would be fateful for the destruction of the republic, why shouldn’t I be glad that my consulate was just about fateful for the salvation of the Roman people?”

I think fatalis here is neutral “fateful”, not “fatal”. Cicero contrasts Lentulus’ name, which L. thought would be fateful in a bad way, with C.'s consulship, which was more or less fateful in a good way. The qualifier prope is false modesty.

There’s also a contrast between putavit fore and laeter extitisse: Lentulus thought + future; Cicero rejoices + perfect. Lentulus looked into the future erroneously; Cicero looks back at the past with satisfaction. Also suum nomen/meum consulatum.

The contrast seems somewhat contrived.

Note: laeter is present subjunctive–this is a deliberative subjunctive.

3

Thanks. I can certainly do better.

4

I woke up in the middle of the night and, not being able to fall back asleep, got some reading done; I continued until section 8, in which I ran into some difficulties. I’ve mostly cleared it up but there are a couple of things I’m having trouble parsing;

Ed: I figured one out, which leaves this, after a description of how Caesar says that indefinite detention is worse than death:

Itaque, ut aliqua in vita formido improbis esset posita, apud inferos eius modi quaedam illi antiqui supplicia impiis constituta esse voluerunt, quod videlicet intellegebant, eis remotis, non esse mortem ipsam pertimescendam.

(“And so, for terror to have been placed in the wicked, (to be placed) among the shades – the method of punishment that the ancients wanted to constitute against the unfaithful, because, you see, they understood, the ancient ones (dative of reference?), that death itself is not to be feared.” This is obviously not right – for starters, I can’t find a place for “in aliqua vita” and “quaedam”, and the “ut” clause doesn’t look right, so it might be wildly wrong. Breaking it down into clauses: “Illi antiqui voluerunt consituta esse quaedam eius modi supplicia, ut formido esset posita improbis, quod etc.” “The ancient ones wanted this kind of certain pubishments to be established so terror might be placed in the wicked because, you may see, they understood, the ancient ones, that death itself is nothing to be feared.” Now I’m just more confused. I probably should have tried the subject-and-predicate method before I got this far into the sentence.)

I’m not sure more thinking would be productive, and would probably lead to frustrating overthinking.

5

Itaque, ut aliqua in uita formido improbis esset posita, apud inferos eius modi quaedam illi antiqui supplicia impiis constituta esse uoluerunt, quod uidelicet intellegebant, eis remotis, non esse mortem ipsam pertimescendam.

aliqua is nominative and modifies formido

uoluerunt – see Lewis and Short uolo B 8:

8 To be of opinion that something is or was, = censere, dicere, but implying that the opinion is erroneous or doubtful, usu. in the third pers., sometimes in the second.
(a) To imagine, consider: est genus hominum qui esse se primos omnium rerum volunt, Nec sunt, Ter. Eun. 2, 2, 17: semper auget adsentator id quod is cujus ad voluntatem dicitur vult esse magnum, Cic. Lael. 26, 98: si quis patricius, si quis—quod illi volunt invidiosius esse—Claudius diceret, Liv. 6, 40, 13.—
(b) To be of opinion, to hold: vultis, opinor, nihil esse … in naturā praeter ignem, Cic. N. D. 3, 14, 36: volunt illi omnes … eādem condicione nasci, id. Div. 2, 44, 93: vultis evenire omnia fato, id. ib. 2, 9, 24: alteri censent, etc., alteri volunt a rebus fatum omne relegari, id. Fat. 19, 45: vultis a dis immortalibus hominibus dispertiri somnia, id. N. D. 3, 39, 93; id. Tusc. 1, 10, 20; id. Fin. 3, 11, 36; id. Rep. 2, 26, 48: volunt quidam … iram in pectore moveri effervescente circa cor sanguine, Sen. Ira, 2, 19, 3.—
(c) To say, assert: si tam familiaris erat Clodiae quam tu esse vis, as you say he is, Cic. Cael. 21, 53: sit sane tanta quanta tu illam esse vis, id. Or. 1, 55, 23: ad pastum et ad procreandi voluptatem hoc divinum animal procreatum esse voluerunt: quo nihil mihi videtur esse absurdius, id. Fin. 2, 13, 40; 2, 17, 55; 2, 42, 131; 2, 46, 142; id. Fat. 18, 41.—With perf. inf.: Rhodi ego non fui: me vult fuisse, Cic. Planc. 34, 84.—
(d) To pretend, with perf. inf., both subjects denoting the same person: unde homines dum se falso terrore coacti Effugisse volunt, etc., Lucr. 3, 69 (cf. A. 1. n. supra). (ε) To mean, with perf. inf.: utrum scientem vultis contra foedera fecisse, an inscientem? Cic. Balb. 5, 13.— With pres. inf.: quam primum istud, quod esse vis? what do you mean by as soon as possible? Sen. Ep. 117, 24.—（ζ) Rarely in the first pers., implying that the opinion is open to discussion: ut et mihi, quae ego vellem non esse oratoris, concederes, what according to my opinion is not the orator’s province, Cic. Or. 1, 17, 74.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.20:1257.lewisandshort

quaedam modifies supplicia, and eis refers anaphorically to supplicia.

eis remotis – ablative absolute: “these having been removed,” “if these were to be removed,” i.e., “without these”.

And thus, so that some fear should be held out in front of the wicked [i.e., so that the wicked should be deterred by fear from practicing wickedness], people in earlier times used to claim that certain/some punishments of this sort had been set up among the denizens of the underworld [apud inferos], because, of course, they understood that without them death itself wasn’t something to be afraid of."

uidelicet is probably ironical. Cicero contemptuously rejected the idea of punishment in the afterlife in the Tusculan Disputations, as probably most educated Romans would have.

6

Sections 9-10:

Choosing between Caesar’s recommendation and Silanus’:

Si eritis secuti sententiam C. Caesaris, quoniam hanc is in re publica viam quae popularis habetur secutus est, fortasse minus erunt–hoc auctore et cognitore huiusce sententiae–mihi populares impetus pertimescendi: sin illam alteram, nescio an amplius mihi negotii contrahatur.

(“If you follow Caesar’s sentence, since he follows the path in the Republic that is called the Popular, perhaps less will be – with him as the proposer and sponsor of this opinion – to me the Populares of fearing the strike (fearing the strike of the people?); but if (you follow) the other opinion, I’m not sure whether it is contracted to me the greater of its trouble.” That’s obviously not quite it but that’s about as far as I can get, at least this morning.)

…et sancit in posterum, ne quis huius supplicio levando se iactare, et in perniciem populi Romani posthac popularis esse possit:

(“and it is ordained in posterity, that not one who throws himself to lighten the punishment of this (“for lightening the punishment”), and afterwards in the destruction of the Roman people may be “Popular”.”)

7

Si eritis secuti sententiam C. Caesaris, quoniam hanc is in re publica uiam quae popularis habetur secutus est, fortasse minus erunt–hoc auctore et cognitore huiusce sententiae–mihi populares impetus pertimescendi:

sententia – “opinion,” here perhaps “recommendation” or “proposal.”

impetus – nominative plural, subject of pertimescendi, modified by populares.

nescio an – an idiom = “perhaps”

Note eritis secuti – future perfect because the decision comes before the main verb erunt.

“if you follow Caesar’s recommendation, since he follows the political line which is considered “popular” in public affairs, perhaps attacks by the masses [impetus populares] will be less to be feared by me, with him as the originator and sponsor of this proposal” i.e., ". . . perhaps I will have less reason to fear attacks by the masses . . . "

. . . sin illam alteram [sententiam secuti eritis], nescio an amplius mihi negotii contrahatur.

“. . . but if you follow the other proposal, perhaps more trouble will be brought on for me.” i.e., “. . . perhaps I will incur more trouble.”

contrahatur is subjunctive (not future) because it’s the verb of an indirect question introduced by nescio an, but it’s parallel to erunt . . . pertimescendi in the preceding part of the sentence.

itaque homo mitissimus atque lenissimus non dubitat P. Lentulum aeternis tenebris uinculisque mandare et sancit in posterum, ne quis huius supplicio leuando se iactare, et in perniciem populi Romani posthac popularis esse possit:

homo mitissimus atque lenissimus refers to Caesar (known for his clemency) and is the subject of non dubitat and sancit.

in posterum – “for the future”, not “posterity.”

ne quis = no one. quis instead of aliquis follows si, nisi, ne and num.

“And so, [Caesar], the most mild and lenient man, doesn’t hesitate to consign P. Lentulus to the perpetual darkness [of a prison cell] and chains, and sanctions/confirms for the future that no one should be able to exert himself [se iactare] in alleviating his [Lentulus’] punishment and then be a “popularis” to the detriment/destruction of the Roman people.”

The words are chosen for the alliteration and the play on populi/popularis. Anyone who acts to the detriment of the Roman people can’t be a popularis.

8

In case you’re wondering where I’ve gone, I haven’t given up; I’m just getting a lot more of it on my own. I’ve noticed that I’ve actually changed the way I read, sorting out inflectional endings on the fly and thus understanding things better. It also helps that this oration isn’t as tough as the first two, but when I run into trouble I’ll still come here.

Unfortunately I’ve missed out on a lot of commentary for this reason but in the end I suppose it’s a good thing that I’m reading better.

9

Don’t neglect the commentary completely–at least skim over it. Dyck’s commentary is very good on both linguistic and historical matters. You can pick up from the commentary a lot of information that will be helpful in reading other texts.

Engaging with ancient Latin texts isn’t just a matter of understanding the words–you need to bring to bear a lot of information about a society that was very different from the one we live in and about the thinking of people whose mind-sets were in many respects quite different from ours. Good commentaries fill in much of that information, so that you can accumulate it over time as you read more and more Latin. Ultimately, having a store of this information will help you read new material more fluently.

10

I meant your commentary, which I’ve found enlightening and interesting. I’ve been using notes (from the same website as the text) and it’s filled in the requisite background, some grammatical uses and less-common uses of words, et cetera. It’s not extensive – it’s certainly not as comprehensive as that in the student editions I’ve ordered of works to read – but it does the trick well enough.

11

Tough sentence in section 21:

Cicero will go down in history among great conquerers:

Erit profecto inter horum laudes aliquid loci nostrae gloriae,–nisi forte maius est patefacere nobis provincias quo exire possimus, quam curare ut etiam illi qui absunt habeant quo victores revertantur.

(“Something of my glory certainly will be among these praises, unless, perhaps, it is greater that I may make open to us provinces where I may go out to make sure that even they who are absent have a place where their victories may turn them.” This obviously isn’t right and doesn’t make sense but it’s the best I can do, at least for now, though I’ll probably mull it over later.)

12

As I understand it, literally :

“Surely there will be some place for my glory among their praises/fame, unless opening us provinces where we can go is greater than taking care that those who are absent should have [a place] to come back to victorious.”

Otherwise said : “What I’ve done, i. e. ensuring that our victorious generals have a place to come back to, is no less important than what they do, i. e. conquering new provinces. Therefore, my fame should be no less than theirs.”

13

aliquid loci – this is an idiomatic expression. Locus is treated as a “mass” or “innumerable” noun: “something of place”, i.e., some place or other, some small place.

horum laudes – “the praises of these men,” not “these praises.” I might translate “honors”

victores – “victors,” not “victories.”

nostrae is “singular” nos, referring to Cicero, i.e., “I”, the “we” of false modesty that Cicero uses so often. However, nobis and possimus are plural, referring to senators who were assigned as governors of conquered provinces after serving as consuls and praetors–proconsuls and propraetors–assignments that allowed them to enrich themselves by essentially raping their assigned provinces to make up for the fortunes they had run through in their youth(which their fathers had also accumulated as rapacious provincial governors). This was the corrupt era of the late Republic–only to be followed by the corruption of the Principate.

patefacere prouincias – “open up,” i.e., conquer, new provinces.

“Among the honors accorded to these men there will certainly be some small space for my fame, unless perhaps it is greater to conquer, for the benefit of us senators [nobis], new provinces we can go out to as governors than to make sure that even those who are abroad [qui absunt i.e., serving in Roman armies conquering new provinces] have somewhere they can return to as victors.”

Cicero is contrasting his own role in saving the “homeland” with that of the Roman generals he has just named, who enlarged the Roman empire by foreign military conquest. He is rather defensively asserting the importance of his achievement in suppressing the Catilinarian revolt, in the face of public opinion that would have valued foreign military conquests much more highly than the maintenance of public order at home.

Edit: I didn’t see Shenoute’s post before I posted. He beat me to it.

14

Thanks to both of you. That’s a more nuanced sentence than most of them, but the careless mistakes are a bit embarrassing. I’ve got to wonder how many errors I’m making when I’m able to work them out on my own: but they at least make sense in themselves and in context, whereas when they don’t make sense it’s usually a sure tip-off for mistakes.

Qimmik - you see what I’m talking about when I refer to your “commentary”.