I did consider that, but it didn't really seem to be integral to the thought of the philosophers he's describing -- more like an aside by Cicero himself.It's because it's part of indirect speech (depending on putant).
Pariat is subjunctive for the same reason, btw.
Not trying to be difficult, but how do you know for sure? There's nothing about that clause at all that feels integral to the reported speech; one could take it out and the sentence would still make perfect sense (I mean, presumably all the seasons and types of weather are necessary to grow crops, not just some of them, so it's not as if it's specifying a particular subset of them, and it's already been made clear that we're talking about the earth providing crops, etc. in the first part, so...)It seems like not.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be part of their thought.one could take it out and the sentence would still make perfect sense
What persuades me (apart from the subjunctives) that Cicero intends this clause as part of the thoughts of the philosophers is that it completes the sense unit that began with "nam et fruges". The idea of the philosophers seems to be that there are crops et al. and these only exist because the seasons etc. allow them to mature and grow. Taking "quibus omnia" etc. as Cicero's own comment leaves the crops on the one hand and the role of the seasons etc. in facilitating the gift of crops on the other much less tightly linked to one another in the thoughts of the original speakers.Ok -- I'd just thought by the winky face that there must be some obvious reason I was missing.
Even spiders sometimes read those old philosophers:Hmm, ok, I see what you mean; it does make more sense as a whole that way, especially since this is explaining/elaborating on why these philosophers believe all things to be ordered by God and provision made for human life, etc. Thanks.
We had that movie when I was a kid; I must have watched it dozens of times.Even spiders sometimes read those old philosophers: