Neque refert...

rd3482

New Member

Salvete,

Here's a longish sentence from Fleischer and Moreland that confuses me. Any help would be appreciated!

Neque refert cuiusquam utrum rex cupidus sit auctoritatis ostendendae necne. Cives ei favent, nec sua interest quo modo viribus utatur, dummodo sibi ipsis ne noceat.

Here is my tentative attempt:

And it is of no concern to anybody whether the king is desirous of manifesting authority or not. The citizens favor him, and he does not care in what way to use his power, provided that he does not hurt himself with this very power (???)

rd3482

I think I might have understood it; it's the whole indirect reflexive rules thing... I am right by assuming that the second sentence actually reads: "provide that he does not hurt THEM with this power"?
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Lago Duria
Sua and sibi ipsis refer to the citizens. :)
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
I don't blame you for being confused. It must be as Laurentius says, because the obvious sense of the sentence is that the citizens are the ones who don't care how the king uses his power, but the use of reflexive sua to refer to them strikes me as very odd when the subject of utatur is the king, not them.

Where does this sentence come from, BTW? Was it adapted from a passage of real Latin, or is it entirely made up? I must say I have some serious doubts about the sentence being grammatical as formulated.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I have the same feeling as IR.
 

rd3482

New Member

Thanks so much for the comments, guys! The sentence, as mentioned, is from the Fleischer and Moreland book, which I generally trust, mostly because I have met Ms. Fleischer (she teaches at the institution in which I received my doctorate) and she struck me as a serious scholar. There is no indication as to whether the sentence has been invented or adapted.

About the sua, however, there is a specific grammatical section which refers to it, which might make it a little clearer. I quote verbatim from the book:

"Hoc ducis interest (refert) : this is in the interest of the leader
BUT
Mea interest (refert) ut celeriter: It is of interest to me that you go away quickly.

In the latter case, mea is in fact modifying the noun re, which is the first part of the verb refers. The use of the ablative mea with interest is on analogy with refert. "

Does that make sense?
rd3482
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
That is not the problem. The problem is that sua is reflexive (as well as sibi), it's used to refer back to the subject, but here in nec sua interest quo modo viribus utatur, dummodo sibi ipsis ne noceat, the subject is the indirect question, not the citizens, and same in the dummodo clause, the subject is "he", not the citizens, so you would normally expect nec eorum interest quomodo viribus utatur, dummodo ipsis ne noceat.

For a more detailed explanation on the use of reflexives, I quote what I said in another thread:

The reflexive possessive adjectives suus, a, um and the reflexive pronouns se, sibi are used, first, when directly referring to the subject of the clause they are in:

Puer cani suo aquam dat = the boy gives water to his (own) dog; the reflexive is used because the owner of the dog, puer, is the subject of the sentence. If it was "his dog" not as the boy's dog, but someone else's dog, you wouldn't say suo, but the genitive of a demonstrative, like eius or illius: puer cum amico loquitur et cani eius aquam dat = the boy is talking with his friend and gives water to his (= the friend's) dog.

However there are cases where the reflexive is used while not referring directly to the subject of the very clause it is in, but to the subject of the clause on which it depends; those cases are when the clause depends on indirect speech, verbs of saying, ordering, wishing, saying, feeling, and purpose clauses.

Puer cani suo aquam dari vult = the boy wants water to be given to his dog: puer is not the subject of the clause (acc-inf) in which suo is (the subject is aquam), but it is that of the verb on which that clause depends, vult.

Puer canem suum sitire ait = the boy says his dog is thirsty: same thing here, puer is not the subject of the clause suum is in, but it's that of the verb on which that acc-inf clause depends, ait.

Puer aquam haurit ut canis suus bibat = the boy draws water so that his dog may drink: puer is not the subject of the clause canis suus bibat, but this clause is a purpose clause depending on the clause in which puer is subject.

On the whole, the reflexive is used without referring directly to the subject of the clause it is in when this clause depends on a verb which in some way introduces something coming from the thought of the subject; if it's something they say, order, feel, aim at...

There can be some exceptions, but these are the principal rules.

The reflexive is also used in indirect questions: ex. Puer nescit ubi sit canis suus = the boy doesn't know where his dog is. It's also something in the mind of puer, something he doesn't know, wonders about.
 

Oups

Active Member

Esp.: intĕrest, impers., it makes a difference, interests, concerns, imports; is of interest, importance; constr. with gen. pers. or meā, tuā, suā, and with a subj. or rel. clause, ut or ne, or with ad:
L&S
How sua could be used if possessive must agree with the "subject" of impersonal verb ?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
L&S
How sua could be used if possessive must agree with the "subject" of impersonal verb ?
It can be used in a subordinate clause and refer back to the subject of the verb of the main clause it depends on (in indirect speech, verbs of saying, ordering, wishing, saying, feeling, purpose clauses and indirect questions, as I explained in my post above).

For ex.:

Cives sua non interesse aiunt quomodo dux viribus utatur.
The citizens say that it doesn't matter for them how the leader uses his power.
Here sua doesn't refer back to the subject of interest of course (it would be quite impossible), but to the subject of aiunt on which the indirect statement depends. This is correct.

But there's nothing like that in the text posted by the OP, sua refers neither to the subject of a clause it's in nor to that of a main clause like those I mentioned, since sua non interest is itself the main clause, it doesn't depend on anything; and I don't see any other reason (for there can be other reasons in some context) that would justify the use of the reflexive here.
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
Varsovia
The citizens say that it doesn't matter for them how the leader uses his power.
more idiomatically and tersely: The citizens say they don't care how the leader uses his power.
 

Oups

Active Member

I don't find any interesse in L&S III. Esp.: intĕrest, impers

What about
mira erant in civitatibus ipsorum furta Graecorum quae magistratus sui fecerant.
(Cicero, Letters to Atticus 6,2,5) ?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I don't find any interesse in L&S III. Esp.: intĕrest, impers
Interesse is just the infinitive of interest. Any verb becomes infinitive in indirect discourse, impersonal verbs included.

Interest qomodo viribus utatur = it matters how he uses his power, in an indirect statement becomes interesse ait quomodo viribus utatur = he says that it matters how he uses his strength (literally "he says it to matter how...").
mira erant in civitatibus ipsorum furta Graecorum quae magistratus sui fecerant.
(Cicero, Letters to Atticus 6,2,5) ?
I am not sure why the reflexive is used there. Perhaps he meant some emphasis like "which their own magistrates had done". But then I wonder why not rather ipsorum (could it be that he just didn't want to repeat it?). Maybe Imber Ranae will know.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
3. Colloquially and in epistolary style suus is used emphatically instead of ejus, with the meaning own, peculiar: deinde ille actutum subferret suus servus poenas Sosia, his own slave (opp. Mercury, who personates Sosias), Plaut. Am. 3, 4, 19: mira erant in civitatibus ipsorum furta Graecorum quae magistratus sui fecerant, their own magistrates ( = ipsorum), Cic. Att. 6, 2, 5 6, 2, 5: “in quibus (litteris Bruti) unum alienum summā suā prudentiā (est), ut spectem ludos suos,” his peculiar prudence, id. ib. 15, 26, 1; so, “quod quidem ille (Nero) decernebat, quorumdam dolo ad omina sui exitus vertebatur,” Tac. A. 16, 24; cf. II. A. 1. β and γ; II. A. 2. a. β; II. B. 3.—
Ah, ok. It seems to be more or less what I thought.
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
I don't find any interesse in L&S III. Esp.: intĕrest, impers
Did you miss the Suetonius cite? Quidam Caesarem dicere solitum ferunt non tam sua quam rei publicae interesse uti salvus esset. [Suet. Caes. 86]
 
Top