Context: Suetonius recounts shocking reports about Tiberius’s treatment of Germanicus.
Etiam causa mortis fuisse ei per Cn. Pisonem legatum Syriae creditur, quem mox huius criminis reum putant quidam mandata prolaturum, nisi ea secreto ostentanti auferenda ipsumque iugulandum curasset.
I think I have the general idea: People say Tiberius ordered the murder of Germanicus by Piso; and then when Piso was on trial for that murder, and about to reveal his written orders, Tiberius had them seized, and had Pico put to death.
But I wish I could explain why “curasset” is pluperfect active subjunctive. Is the idea that Piso was about to reveal written evidence of Tiberius’s involvement, but before this could happen, Tiberius had taken care that the papers would be siezed, and Piso killed? Is there a matter of indirect discourse here, depending on “putant”?
Is “prolaturum” an incomplete future active infinitive? How to explain the choice of “auferenda”?
I had to consult the translation to see the meaning, and I’m still unsure about the grammar.
One thing you should know about this passage is that everything after ostentant- was filled in by a 19th century editor, Roth (I consulted Ihm’s Teubner critical edition). Something is wrong with the ms. here, and there have been various attempts to fill it in.
In response to your question, prolaturum fuisse and curasset is a past conditional in indirect discourse, depending on putant. The verb prolaturum [fuisse] would be pluperfect in direct discourse, as is curassent in the protasis–the “if” clause. In direct discourse, prolaturum would probably be prolaturum fuerat or erat (rather than prolaturum fuisset) and in indirect discourse goes into the perfect infinitive. (It would go into the perfect infinitive even if it were plup. subj. in direct discourse.) “He was about to expose the orders [and would have done so] had not . . .”
auferenda and iugulandum with curasset are equivalent to the curo ut + subj. idiom: “to have something done”: “if he (Tiberius) had not had the orders stolen and Piso strangled.” But this was filled in by Roth.
In fact, Cn. Piso was tried for lèse majesté (maiestas, a personal offense against the ruler) and committed suicide, proclaiming his innocence, before his trial was over. The account in Suetonius/Roth (including the death of Germanicus by poison) is an example of the “conspiracy theory” rumors that floated around an imperial court even before the internet (which is not to say they might not have been true).
d. The participle in -ūrus with eram or fuī may take the place of an Imperfect or Pluperfect Subjunctive in the apodosis of a condition contrary to fact:—
“quid enim futūrum fuit [=fuisset], sī … ” (Liv. 2.1) , what would have happened if, etc.
“ relictūrī agrōs erant, nisi ad eōs Metellus litterās mīsisset ” (Verr. 3.121) , they would have abandoned their fields, if Metellus had not sent them a letter.
“neque ambigitur quīn … id factūrus fuerit, sī … ” (Liv. 2.1) , nor is there any question that he would have done it, if, etc. [Direct: fēcisset .]
“adeō parāta sēditiō fuit ut Othōnem raptūrī fuerint, nī incerta noctis timuissent ” (Tac. H. 1.26) , so far advanced was the conspiracy that they would have seized upon Otho, had they not feared the hazards of the night. [In a main clause: rapuissent , nī timuissent .]
The indicative is used because this construction implies "X was about to [and would have] if . . . "
Many thanks for the two replies, Qimmik. Indirect discourse, with conditions contrary to fact: I keep running into this issue.
Fwiw, the textual problem was tersely noted in the version I was reading, and I got a little more information in my web searches in quest of grammatical commentary on that passage. I want to study the passage more, and the grammatical references you provided. Usually I can quickly see where I went wrong, but here my confusion is great enough that I need to do some review.
Doesn’t this mix direct with indirect? Wouldn’t direct (i.e. without putant quidam) be qui … reus … prolaturus erat? And in the indirect form, prolaturum sc. esse, not fuisse.
AG’s formulation that the indic. may “take the place of” the subjunctive is a bit misleading. I think you put it better: “The indicative is used because this construction implies 'X was about to [and would have] if . . . '," and your translation “(Some think that) he was about to expose the orders [and would have done so] had not . . .”
I think of Tacitus’ verdict on Galba, capax imperii (sc. erat) nisi imperasset.
Yes, you’re right. I changed the verb, but I forgot to change accusatives to nominatives. I was in a hurry. Sorry about this.
But wouldn’t the indirect form be prolaturum fuisse? putant is present, but these events happened about 100+ years before Suetonius was writing.
And yes, there’s a lot of things in Allen & Greenough–and Smyth, too–that make me wince: not quite wrong, but framed in a way that’s very rigid and mechanical, and isn’t illuminating.
Well we have the indirect form, and it’s prolaturum tout court. I want the corresponding direct form to be prolaturus erat. (That’s open to question, of course, but seems more idiomatic than alternatives.) Properly I suppose that ought to be fuisse in indirect, as being a past tense, but then there’d be no distinguishing from direct fuit or fuerat or fuisset; so I’d prefer it to be esse. Perhaps I’ve been reading too much Greek, where imperfect is represented by present infin. But how often does the simple future participle represent that + fuisse rather than esse? (A question asked out of ignorance, but I don’t much like the idea of it.) We may be trying to tie it down too precisely in any case. Oratio obliqua tends to be more ambiguous than O.recta, and it’s not always possible to convert OO to one particular form of OR.
Edit. Ignore the last sentence, which is correct but not quite relevant.