In Catilinam III:21

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
I don't understand the ut + subjunctive in the bolded bit (rest of the paragraph given for context):

[21] Hic quis potest esse, Quirites, tam aversus a vero, tam praeceps, tam mente captus, qui neget haec omnia, quae videmus, praecipueque hanc urbem deorum inmortalium nutu ac potestate administrari? Etenim, cum esset ita responsum, caedes, incendia, interitum rei publicae comparari, et ea per cives, quae tum propter magnitudinem scelerum non nullis incredibilia videbantur, ea non modo cogitata a nefariis civibus, verum etiam suscepta esse sensistis. Illud vero nonne ita praesens est, ut nutu Iovis optimi maximi factum esse videatur, ut, cum hodierno die mane per forum meo iussu et coniurati et eorum indices in aedem Concordiae ducerentur, eo ipso tempore signum statueretur? Quo collocato atque ad vos senatumque converso omnia [et senatus et vos], quae erant contra salutem omnium cogitata, inlustrata et patefacta vidistis.

"Is it (i.e. the following) really not so present/at hand that it appears to have come about at the nod of Jupiter Optimus Maximus that, as the conspirators and their witnesses were being led by my command this morning through the forum into the Temple of Concordia, at that same time the sign [statue of Jupiter discussed in (20)] was being erected?"

That's what it seems to be saying, but I don't understand how the grammar works here. Help is appreciated!
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
That translation seems to be correct. But I'm not quite sure what your question is.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
Because ut + subjunctive isn't normally, as far as I know, used in that way (like equivalent to acc + inf).
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
The "ut" clause is an example of this, going with "factum esse".


In that sense of "facio" (to cause, to bring about), acc+inf is pretty rare.
 

Godmy

A Monkey
I think a result clause*.

Edit: I retracted some things I wrote. I think I concord with the explanation given.
*Edit2: Not really a result clause, if a subject, but semantically it's similar to it: describing something which really happens (is not potential) through a "ut" clause just like result clauses do.
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
I think that could make sense, though a simple "it was brought about that ... on that very day the statue was being erected" could make sense also, in my opinion.
 

Godmy

A Monkey
Yes, I think you're right. I changed my mind in the mean time about the subject, as you were posting your answer. Also then, as I added my second editation, it would be wrong to call it a result clause as I did, but I pointed some similarities between fit+ ut and result clauses (=both expressing something really happening, not merely potential or intended, through a ut+subj. clause).
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
Ah, I see what you mean: "brought about that..." Yes, that makes sense. Thanks, Dantius! :)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
ut + subjunctive isn't normally, as far as I know, used in that way (like equivalent to acc + inf).
It is. Fit/factum est/etc. ut... is a regular construction. An acc.-inf. clause wouldn't be normal there (I've seen it in medieval Latin, but never in classical, I think).

Edit: I mean, the ut clause is normal here. I don't mean that it's normal instead of acc.-inf. in situations that require acc.-inf. (there are some situations where either can be used, but not all); but this situation doesn't require acc.-inf.
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
It is. Fit/factum est/etc. ut... is a regular construction. An acc.-inf. clause wouldn't be normal there (I've seen it in medieval Latin, but never in classical, I think).

Edit: I mean, the ut clause is normal here. I don't mean that it's normal instead of acc.-inf. in situations that require acc.-inf. (there are some situations where either can be used, but not all); but this situation doesn't require acc.-inf.
There do seem to be some situations with an infinitive, but it's not common:
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Yes, I knew that facere + acc. + inf., in the same sense as "to make someone do something" in English, occasionally happened. But I've never seen (or at any rate don't remember seeing) factum est + acc.-inf. in the sense of "it happened/was brought about that..." in classical Latin.
 
Top