Cicero De officiis

[massimo.p]

Can anybody help me with this? The following is an excerpt from Cicero's De officiis:

"Eademque natura vi rationis hominem conciliat homini et ad orationis et ad vitae societatem ingeneratque in primis praecipuum quendam amorem in eos, qui procreati sunt."

And here is my rather literal translation:

"And the same nature, by the power of reason joins man to man towards a society of life and speech and especially engenders a certain, particular love in those who have been born."

Now, I can certainly offer a more eloquent translation, but my problem is with the relative clause at the end of the passage. Several translations I've consulted render the "special" love as something engendered in man "for the offspring" rather than engendered or implanted "into the offspring," which is what the relative clause seems to convey, "qui" being in the nominative case rather than, for instance, the ethical dative.

 

[Pacifica]

In eos = toward those or for those

Qui is nominative because it's the subject of procreati sunt. The case of a relative pronoun is totally independent from that of the antecedent (here eos). It takes the case required by its own function in the relative clause.

 

[massimo.p]

Can anybody help me with this? The following is an excerpt from Cicero's De officiis:

"Eademque natura vi rationis hominem conciliat homini et ad orationis et ad vitae societatem ingeneratque in primis praecipuum quendam amorem in eos, qui procreati sunt."

And here is my rather literal translation:

"And the same nature, by the power of reason joins man to man towards a society of life and speech and especially engenders a certain, particular love in those who have been born."

Now, I can certainly offer a more eloquent translation, but my problem is with the pronoun that comes directly before the relative clause at the end of the passage. Several translations I've consulted render the "special" love as something engendered in man "for the offspring" rather than engendered or implanted "into the offspring," which is what "in eos, qui" seems to convey, being in the accusative rather than, say, the ethical dative.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[massimo.p]

Sorry, my reply should have been an edit.

 

[Pacifica]

In eos is adjectival to amorem. It isn't saying that love is engendered into those who have been begotten, but that love toward/for those who have been begotten is engendered (in human beings in general). Do you see what I mean?

 

[massimo.p]

I understand what you have said about the relative pronoun, but does my reply / edit change your analysis?

 

[massimo.p]

Your replies are coming faster than my edits. Let me see what you have said

 

[Pacifica]

So much cross-posting and cross editing going on!

Does this answer your question?

In eos is adjectival to amorem. It isn't saying that love is engendered into those who have been begotten, but that love toward/for those who have been begotten is engendered (in human beings in general). Do you see what I mean?

 

[Pacifica]

Note that a dative wouldn't really work there. It just isn't the usual way to express the idea of "love toward/for someone". That's usually expressed with in + acc., or alternatively erga + acc.

 

[massimo.p]

"in" also means "to" or "towards;" stultus sum!

Thanks!