Tacitus Annals Question

Latin
1

Here is a sentence from Annals 14.7:

igitur longum utriusque silentium, ne inriti dissuaderent, an eo descensum credebant, [ut], nisi praeveniretur Agrippina, pereundum Neroni esset.

I would have thought that “credebant” begins an indirect statement. But what follows has the tenses that it would have if it were a present contrary to fact in a direct statement. So are we to conclude that, for whatever reason, credebant doesn’t cast this conditional as an indirect statement? Note that the editor has inserted “ut,” which may make the ut plus the entire conditional an “ut/direct object clause” (or a noun-clause in Woodcock-speak). Maybe that means under the rules for determining whether we have an indirect statement, we don’t have an indirect statement?

I haven’t found anything on this in grammar books or the Annals commentaries to which I have access. I did, however, find the following in the wiki article on indirect statements:

"Expressions with ut

In addition, various expressions such as accidit ut ‘it happened that’, effēcit ut ‘he brought it about that’, etc. are followed by an ut-clause with the subjunctive. However, these are generally classified in grammar books as a type of consecutive clause, rather than ōrātiō oblīqua. The negative is ut … nōn.

accidit cāsū ut lēgātī Prūsiae Rōmae cēnārent (Nepos)

'it happened by chance that some ambassadors of King Prusias were dining in Rome’

effēcit ut imperātor cum exercitū in Hispāniam mitterētur (Nepos)

'he arranged that he should be sent to Spain as commander with an army’

utinam quidem dī immortālēs fēcissent ut tuus potius mīles quam Cn. Pompēī factus essem! (De Bello Hispaniensi)[75]

'if only the immortal gods had brought it about that I had become your soldier rather than Gnaeus Pompeius’s!’

datur haec venia antīquitātī ut miscendō hūmāna dīvīnīs prīmōrdia urbium augustiōra faciat (Liv

‘this pardon is given to antiquity that by mixing human and divine it makes the beginnings of cities more grand’

The article cites Woodcock at 103. Not sure how helpful that is. Also note that in T. case we don’t have an expression such as “accidit ut” (impersonal 3rd person with ut).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the siginificance in terms of the meaning that T. isn’t using the tenses for a conditional in OO. Is he (rather than the subjects of credebant) vouching for the truth of the conditional - That is, is Tacitus saying that unless Agrippina were stopped, Nero would perish?

Thanks so much!!

2

They believed the situation had sunk to the point that (eo ut) ….

3

Got that. Thanks. Are you saying that “nisi. . .esset,” while a present contrary to fact conditional, is NOT in indirect discourse?

4

Another question on same chapter: Woodcock says “armored…accenderet…persuaderet. subj. because it is a fut. condition in O.O. The apodosis is quod contra subsidium sibi (sc. fore).”

If Woodcock is correct, what is “nisi quid Burrus et Seneca expedirent”? Is it yet another (fourth) protasis of quod contra subsidium sibi”?

5

On your prior query. (One thing at a time!). No I’m not saying that nisi. . .esset is not in indirect discourse. Of course it is, ultimately. But credebant does not directly govern the ut clause. credebant is governing descensum (sc. esse or fuisse), and that in turn governs the (eo) ut consecutive clause, which is conditional (nisi praeveniretur Agrippina protasis, pereundum Neroni esset apodosis).

On your new query, “nisi quid Burrus et Seneca” conditions “quod contra subsidium sibi?” He’d be helpless unless B&S could come up with something. Again it’s all in O.O.

6

This is great - thank you. Agreed that credebant doesn’t directly govern the ut clause. Do you agree that explains why we don’t have an infinitive in the apodosis? Put another way, the grammars (Woodcock, A&G, etc. ) say that the verb in the apodosis in indirect statement must always be an infinitive.

I also agree on “nisi….”, but don’t you think it’s a bit strange for a colon to separate the first three protases (armaret, accenderet, and pervaderet) from the fourth one? In fact, it’s sort of strange to have that very colon separate the first three protases from the apodosis - but Woodcock says they go together.

Thank you so much for your help. You’re obviously a real expert and, with only a bit over a year at this, I’m a novice. I’ll have another Tacitus question for you tomorrow if you’re game

7

Glad I could help. But I’m far from being an expert on Tacitus.
I wouldn’t say there’s no infinitive with credebant. We simply understand esse or fuisse with descensum. And as to the “strangeness” of the preceding syntax, it’s more a matter of effective writing, conveying Nero’s panicky state of mind. And his “quod contra subsidium sibi?” rhetorical question is not on a par with the sive clauses that lead up to it, which have Agrippina as their subject.

8

Agreed. Thanks again.

Peter Daub
pddcva@gmail.com