In Catilinam I: Reading Thread

[Pacifica]

No, it's isn't causal, it's more like some kind of purpose clause (it seems to me it can be called like that...), or at any rate there's some purpose nuance to it, a bit like "as long as there's someone to dare to defend you".

Speculabuntur and custodient are future.

 

[malleolus]

[6] Quamdiu quisquam erit, qui te defendere audeat, vives, et vives ita, ut [nunc] vivis, multis meis et firmis praesidiis obsessus, ne commovere te contra rem publicam possis. Multorum te etiam oculi et aures non sentientem, sicut adhuc fecerunt, speculabuntur atque custodient.

.... Even now the eyes and ears of many will watch and guard you, who is not aware of it , as they have done hitherto.

 

[Callaina]

No, it's isn't causal, it's more like some kind of purpose clause (it seems to me it can be called like that...), or at any rate there's some purpose nuance to it, a bit like "as long as there's someone to dare to defend you".

This seems bizarre. How can it possibly express purpose? How can someone exist "in order to" defend Cataline?

It's rather a relative clause of characteristic meaning "anyone of the type of person who would dare to defend you"

Well, that makes rather more sense to me. So which is it?

Speculabuntur and custodient are future.

Thanks; I can't believe I missed that. Sigh.

 

[Pacifica]

This seems bizarre. How can it possibly express purpose? How can someone exist "in order to" defend Cataline?

Well, presumably the person wouldn't have been born exclusively to defend Catiline, but someone would be there to defend him (though they might do many other things in their lives as well!)...

I think this kind of thing can indeed enter the "characteristic" category.

 

[Callaina]

Well, presumably the person wouldn't have been born exclusively to defend Catiline, but someone would be there to defend him (though they might do many other things in their lives as well!)...

I think this kind of thing can indeed enter the "characteristic" category.

But how can I know for sure? I mean, I'm sure you're right; but how do you know it has more of a "purpose" (or "characteristic") than "causal" meaning? There isn't anything in the grammar/syntax itself that necessarily points to one or the other. It feels like I'm trying to read Cicero's mind (and failing miserably...)

(Sorry, I hope I'm not being annoying; I just am really frustrated by this. I don't think I've yet identified one of these correctly.)

 

[Pacifica]

But how can I know for sure? I mean, I'm sure you're right; but how do you know it has more of a "purpose" (or "characteristic") than "causal" meaning?

I'm not entirely sure how to call this, really, I just know the meaning. In any case it can't be causal simply because it wouldn't make sense — you can't replace qui by "since" or "because" — what would it give? "As long as there is anyone because he dares to defend you, you will live..." you see it doesn't work.

 

[Callaina]

I'm not entirely sure how to call this, really, I just know the meaning. In any case it can't be causal simply because it wouldn't make sense — you can't replace qui by "since" or "because" — what would it give? "As long as there is anyone because he dares to defend you, you will live..." you see it doesn't work.

Ah, ok, I get it! I just didn't understand how a relative causal clause worked in general (actually I don't think I've seen one before in my reading.) So the "since" or "because" is to whatever comes before the relative clause, not after.

Actually in hindsight that seems blindingly obvious. Oh, well.

Thanks, as always.

 

[malleolus]

Quisquam erit, qui belongs to a group of set phrases like est, qui ; sunt(reperiuntur,inveniuntur), qui ; nemo est, qui + subjunctive that carry consecutive meaning.


ETA:
One has to keep in mind Cicero's clever manipulation of his audience
Had Cicero used the indicative: quisquam erit qui te defendere audet, this would make for someone exists who (in fact) dares to defend you.In replacing audet with audeat Cicero drives home the idea that we are no longer dealing with simple facts, but with possibilities, as the qui-clause no longer refers to the person who dares defend Catiline, but to any person with the characteristic of doing so.

Did this make any sense?

 

[Pacifica]

So the "since" or "because" is to whatever comes before the relative clause, not after.

No, not necessarily; but just replace the relative pronoun with "since" (more exactly than "because", in fact, at any rate most of the time) in translation.

But it can modify either what comes before or what comes after. E.g. "Since I went to bed late, I got up late" = quae sero cubitum issem, sero surrexi; "I got up late, since I went to bed late" = sero surrexi, quae sero cubitum issem.

 

[Callaina]

Quisquam erit, qui belongs to a group of set phrases like est, qui ; sunt(reperiuntur,inveniuntur), qui ; nemo est, qui + subjunctive that carry consecutive meaning.

Now I'm even more confused; I thought "consecutive" referred to a result clause, which this isn't... Explain?

 

[Pacifica]

Well, maybe there's kind of a result nuance, "anyone who is such that he dares to defend you/who is such as to dare to defend you"...

 

[malleolus]

Now I'm even more confused; I thought "consecutive" referred to a result clause, which this isn't... Explain?

I'll try again (bear with me - I have sat through 8 hours of testing) and forget about anything consecutive for the moment.


Had Cicero used the indicative: quisquam erit qui te defendere audet, this would make for someone exists who (in fact) dares to defend you.
In replacing audet with audeat Cicero drives home the idea that we are no longer dealing with facts, but with possibilities, as the qui....audeat does not refer to the person who dares to defend Catiline, but to any person with the characteristic of doing so.

I'm sorry if this causes any additional confusion.

 

[Callaina]

I'll try again (bear with me - I have sat through 8 hours of testing) and forget about anything consecutive for the moment.


Had Cicero used the indicative: quisquam erit qui te defendere audet, this would make for someone exists who (in fact) dares to defend you.
In replacing audet with audeat Cicero drives home the idea that we are no longer dealing with facts, but with possibilities, as the qui....audeat does not refer to the person who dares to defend Catiline, but to any person with the characteristic of doing so.

I'm sorry if this causes any additional confusion.

That's quite clear, actually -- thanks. So is something similar going on in the first sentence of the next bit? (Actually, I have a couple other questions too, so I'll give the whole paragraph):

III. Etenim quid est, Catilina, quod iam amplius* expectes, si neque nox tenebris obscurare coetus nefarios nec privata domus parietibus continere voces coniurationis tuae potest, si illustrantur, si erumpunt omnia? Muta iam istam mentem, mihi crede, obliviscere caedis atque incendiorum. Teneris undique; luce sunt clariora nobis tua consilia omnia; quae iam mecum licet recognoscas.**

My translation:

And indeed, Cataline, what now would you more expect [i.e. "What is there, Cataline, of the sort that you would more expect"] if neither the night with its shadows can obscure your nefarious meetings, nor the private home with its walls can contain the voices of your conspiracy; if all [these things] are made obvious, break forth? Change that mind of yours now; believe me; forget fire and destruction. You are contained on every side; all your plots are clearer than light to us; which [things] you may now recognize along with me.

Perseus:

For what is there, O Catiline, that you can still expect, if night is not able to veil your nefarious meetings in darkness, and if private houses cannot conceal the voice of your conspiracy within their walls;—if everything is seen and displayed? Change your mind: trust me: forget the slaughter and conflagration you are meditating. You are hemmed in on all sides; all your plans are clearer than the day to us; let me remind you of them.

Help/comments welcome. I'm especially unsure about the second bolded spot, with licet, because I'm pretty unfamiliar with this verb still. Thanks.

 

[Pacifica]

quid est, Catilina, quod iam amplius* expectes
And indeed, Cataline, what now would you more expect [i.e. "What is there, Cataline, of the sort that you would more expect"]

Kind of, but I'd say "what is there for you to expect anymore" or the like. Note that the order of idea with amplius is that of "something more to expect" or "something to expect any longer" rather than "something you would expect more [than something else]". Your translation looks like you took it as the latter.

nor the private home with its walls can contain the voices of your conspiracy

"Your private home" would possibly look more natural in English.

which [things] you may now recognize along with me.

You got the meaning of licet right. Maybe rocognoscas is more something like "review" or sim. here.

 

[Callaina]

Kind of, but I'd say "what is there for you to expect anymore" or the like. Note that the order of idea with amplius is that of "something more to expect" or "something to expect any longer" rather than "something you would expect more [than something else]". Your translation looks like you took it as the latter.

Yes, I did. Does it always mean this ("any longer"/"any more", rather than "any further/more than something else")?

You got the meaning of licet right. Maybe rocognoscas is more something like "review" or sim. here.

Ok, great

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, I did. Does it always mean this ("any longer"/"any more", rather than "any further/more than something else")?

No, it can also mean "more" in the sense "a greater quantity/number of" or "something more (in addition)", and it can be found with a second term of comparison as well.

 

[malleolus]

ETA:

When translating this bit you would put quid amplius est(id), quod iam exspectes

What more(what else) is it that that you are (still) waiting for

As you correctly guessed , quod... is again a relative clause of characteristic.

 

[Pacifica]

You would have to put quid amplius est(id), quod iam exspectes

What for?

 

[malleolus]

I forgot to put when translating , mylady.

 

[Callaina]

As you correctly guessed , quod... is again a relative clause of characteristic.

Yay! I finally got one of these right