Cornelius Nepos, “Themistocles”
I want to test my understanding of a grammar issue.
Nam cum pecunia publica, quae ex metallis redibat, largitione magistratuum quotannis interiret, ille persuasit populo, ut ea pecunia classis centum navium aedificaretur.
Rough translation:
Now when (before) the public income, which derived from [silver] mines, was used up every year by handouts to the citizens, he [Themistocles] got the people to spend the money to build a fleet of one hundred ships.
I’m working on indirect speech, time clauses, result clauses, etc., using Cornelius Nepos, who is fairly easy reading, esp. when compared to the poets. At first I wanted to see as indirect statement this clause:
ut ea pecunia classis centum navium aedificaretur.
However, it doesn’t fit regular Latin, subject-accusative and infinitive. What’s going on here?
Here’s what I think. Cornelius Nepos wants to stress that Themistocles’s persuasion was successful, that the Athenians adopted his plan and built the fleet. Hence, I decided to think of ut . . . . as a result clause.
Sometimes speech is just talk, but sometimes speech has actual results.
Isn’t this a jussive noun clause? Verb of ordering or requesting + ut + the order or request in the subjunctive.
I’m working on an easier text myself.
Good question, swtwentyman, and it could be. I reached my conclusion by a process like this:
“Holy cow, that looks like indirect statement.”
“But it doesn’t fit the accusative + infinitive model, so it must be classified differently”
(Idea arrives in mind) “Well, they did build the fleet, so maybe it is a result clause.”
I need to add jussive noun clauses to my list of things to review while reading Cornelius Nepos.
I’m waiting for Hylander to weigh in before I venture to go further than this but an indirect statement would be a statement: “he persuaded the citizens that they built the ships”. (I said something about result clauses here – that the ship-building doesn’t follow from the act of an unmarked persuading in itself (“he persuaded, so they built the ships”) but rather from persuading the people to build the ships – but I’m not as confident). That’s just how I see it; take it with a grain of salt.
Jussive noun clauses are also, more sensibly, called indirect commands.
This is a type of clause (ut + subjunctive) that Allen & Greenough call a “substantive clause of purpose”, i.e., a purpose clause that’s the complement of a verb, functioning like a direct object, not a stand-alone purpose clause. Some textbooks might call this a jussive clause, as sw suggests, but whatever label is put on it, it’s a fairly common Latin construction.
A&G 563:
- Substantive Clauses of Purpose with ut (negative nē ) are used as the object of verbs denoting an action directed toward the future.
Such are, verbs meaning to admonish, ask, bargain, command, decree, determine, permit, persuade, resolve, urge, and wish:—1
“monet ut omnēs suspīciōnēs vītet ” (B. G. 1.20) , he warns him to avoid all suspicion.
“hortātur eōs nē animō dēficiant ” (B. C. 1.19) , he urges them not to lose heart.
“tē rogō atque ōrō ut eum iuvēs ” (Fam. 13.66) , I beg and pray you to aid him.
“hīs utī conquīrerent imperāvit ” (B. G. 1.28) , he ordered them to search.
persuādet Casticō ut rēgnum occupāret (id. 1.3), he persuades Casticus to usurp royal power.
suīs imperāvit nē quod omnīnō tēlum rêicerent (id. 1.46), he ordered his men not to throw back any weapon at all.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+563&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001
Thanks to swtwentyman and Hylander for their comments. I make mistakes in my grammar posts, but in this forum they are found out, a good thing. As they say, “We learn from experience, and experience is what happens while we make mistakes.”
Note that this type of clause is not like a result clause because the negative is ne, not ut non.
If it were a result clause, would the tense be perfect instead of imperfect? I forget/am unsure of the rule here.