Hello!!
“Officium est ejus qui praeest, iis, quibus praesit, prodesse.”
I’m not sure if this a case of consecution temporum, if so, a variation of this phrase could be correct: “Officium erat ejus qui praeerat, iis, quibus praeesset, prodesse.”
Thanks in advace!!
It looks good to me.
Thanks. Sometimes I even doubt that I have a name 
.
But what subjunctive is praesit, consecutive?
I hope I’m not getting it totally wrong but without more context I’d say causal: as he rules them, the job/duty is to be useful to them.
I’ve got a question myself: if my interpretation is correct, I feel the repetition of praeesse emphasizes it even more. Anybody agrees?
It reminds me on how we sometimes say stuff like “if I had to say something, I’d say that…”.
More likely it’s consecutive generic
Why? @Constantinus
I’m not sure what you call it, maybe characteristic? In other words (hating translation but…) “It’s the duty of the guy in charge to be useful to those whom he happens to command.”
Yes that s what I meant coz it cannot be causal as has been suggested for it would indicate a reported cause which doesn’t seem to be the case here
Thanks guys. I had checked my grammar but didn’t quite get it.
The case you mention exists in modern Spanish subjunctive in relative clauses and is used because the “iis” is not yet well defined. (Grammar of Bornemann’s Latin workbook B, par. 162.)
I need a more extensive grammar.
Syntaxe latine by Ernout et Thomas is the best.
Thanks for the recommendation, just ordered a copy.
This post discusses the possible meanings of the subjunctive praesit.
Officium est ejus qui praeest, iis, quibus praesit, prodesse.
Given that the subjunctive of the subordinate clause is paired with officium ejus in the main clause, the subjunctive can be read as implying obligation.
One option is the third person jussive:
It is the duty of him who is superintending to do so to the benefit of those for whom he should be so acting efficaciously.
Or we could stretch it to third person hortatory:
It is the duty of him who superintends to do so to the benefit of the supervised - for whom let him act efficaciously.
Or a third speculative possibility. The phrase “Officium est ejus” begins or is included in formulaic directives. It might be that our sentence here is partially a crib from Cicero.
From Cicero Epistulae Ad Quintum Fatrem Book 1 Chapter 7 (Section 22 in Perseus)
…ut nulla alia potestas ab iis quibus is praesit desideretur
…so that recourse to no other power is required by those over whom he has charge
We see the similarity in phrasing. Was the phrase lifted from Cicero and the borrower did not notice that the only reason for the sujbunctive praesit was that it was a subjunctive of subordination under ut, with no subjunctive
mood meanings? Though a subjunctive of subordination can still bear a subjunctive mood meaning, the meaning in such a subordinate context does not always readily stand out. Possibly Cicero in his sentence, if he had written this clause outside of subordination, would have used the indicative praeest.(?) If our sentence under discussion had used praeest instead of praesit, it might read as
It is the duty of him who is superintending to do so beneficially for those over whom he is placed in charge.
Officium est ejus qui praeest, iis, quibus praesit, prodesse.
Where is this from? Is it really out of a genuine Latin text, or is it just made-up Latin?
It’s not the subjunctive praesit that calls for an explanation: it’s the indicative praeest.
praesit is subjunctive because the relative clause, iis quibus praesit, is obviously a relative clause of characteristic, or in the terminology of Ernout & Thomas, if you prefer, a proposition relative consécutive.
But if the sentence is a general statement, as it appears to be, the first relative clause ought to be subjunctive, too: eius qui praesit.
eius qui praeest would refer to a specific individual in a specific context. The sentence as discussed here is torn from any context, so we can’t really tell, but it still seems strange and un-Latin. Someone will probably tell me it’s from Cicero. OK, then point us to the specific context, so that we can see what it really says.
I checked the Perseus collection. It is not from Cicero, and though individual phrases (such as quibus praesit) are attested, not this sentence as written.