7

I was wondering about the correct/preferred syntactic analysis of recitatis litteris in the following complex sentence from Cicero:

Tum Cethegus, qui paulo ante aliquid tamen de gladiis ac sicis, quae apud ipsum erant deprehensa, respondisset dixissetque se semper bonorum ferramentorum studiosum fuisse, recitatis litteris debilitatus atque abiectus conscientia repente conticuit. (Cic. Catil. 3, 10)

Two syntactic analyses seem to be possible: cf. (1) with (2) infra. Here I'd go for (2) but not without some hesitation. Hence my question. Which analysis/parsing & interpretation do you think is the preferred one here? Note that the temporal (1) vs. causal (2) interpretations of recitatis litteris turn out to be motivated by the following different syntactic analyses/parsings:

(1) recitatis litteris is a typical Ablative Absolute construction ([recitatis litteris] [[debilitatus atque abiectus conscientia] repente conticuit]). This is the analysis underlying Pinkster's (2021) translations in his Oxford Latin Syntax (vol. II): 'after his letter was read out' (pages 28 and 30) and 'when his letter was read out' (pages 387, 388, 394, and 396). It is worth pointing out that the latter translation is precisely the one found in Loeb (transl. by C. MacDonald), on page 111: 'Now, when his letter was read out, he stood paralyzed and smitten by his guilty conscience and suddenly fell silent' [italics mine].

or

(2) recitatis litteris is a dominant participle construction in the ablative case, which is not to be analyzed here as "absolute" (cf. option (1) supra) but rather as "dependent" on the participle debilitatus (i.e. 'weakened by the reading of his letter'): [[[recitatis litteris debilitatus] atque [abiectus conscientiā]] repente conticuit]. In this second analysis recitatis litteris would be a causal ablative (depending on debilitatus), which would also have a syntactic and stylistic function similar to that of conscientiā (depending on abiectus). See this post for a similar example of this dominant participle construction in the ablative case (on this occasion, depending on an adjective): victa serpente superbus.

Mitomino
  • 8,791
  • 1
  • 16
  • 29
  • 1
    According to Perseus, this reference is Catil. 3.5. – tony Jan 28 '23 at 09:34
  • 1
    @tony You'll see some people quoting it as "Cat(il). 3.5.10" but I prefer doing it following the standard guidelines provided by the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae: https://thesaurus.badw.de/en/tll-digital/index/a.html . Cf. also: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/cat3.shtml and https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=conscientia%7Erepente%7Econticuit , where the line 15 is added to facilitate the search in PHI Latin Texts. – Mitomino Jan 28 '23 at 16:17
  • 1
    @tony I've just taken a look at the translation by C.D.Yonge in the Perseus site: 'Cethegus...being stricken down and dejected at the reading of his letters, convicted by his own conscience, became suddenly silent'. Note that his translation is more in tune with my option 2) above. However, it is based on the addition of the participle convictus (please see note 6 on the Latin text). In addition to the two analyses above, the analysis (the third one!) involved in C.D. Yonge's translation would be [_recitatis litteris debilitatus atque abiectus] [conscientia convictus] repente conticuit._ – Mitomino Jan 28 '23 at 18:14
  • Since both are possible, would a Roman have necessarily felt the difference here? Or might they also have teased out which was meant? If listening to this speech, would they have re-analyzed an ablative absolute upon hearing debilitatus, which follows it? – cmw Mar 25 '24 at 11:06
  • In A&G the first example of AA is Caesar, acceptīs litterīs, nūntium mittit -- which already makes clear that AA is is perhaps ablative indeed, but absolute not so much (per my definition) - in particular it is many times more than "temporal" but it provides the relevant context which is very close to casual. (i.e, whithout this AA happening it is clear the next action would also not happen). In other words, even if theoretically /syntactically AA is temporal is to be understood as casual. – d_e Mar 25 '24 at 13:31
  • @@cmw In my opinion, the particular syntactic context and the stylistic parallelism with abiectus conscientia makes the 2nd option more natural than the 1st one. NB: recitatis litteris is a typical example of AA found in some important textbooks of Latin syntax: e.g. Woodcock 1959 and Pinkster 2021. As noted above, this example is mentioned MANY times by Pinkster. Perhaps he just followed Woodcock (1959: 34-35), who also omits the particular syntactic context involved but I don’t know if there is a better reason for choosing the 1st option, the one selected by the Loeb translator. – Mitomino Mar 25 '24 at 13:51
  • @d_e Why do you say that acceptīs litterīs is not an AA "per your definition"? Cf. https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15055/grammatical-structure-of-obsidibus-imperatis-centum-hos-haeduis-custodiendos-tr/15058#15058 for some apparently "problematic" examples from a classical author like Caesar (!). – Mitomino Mar 25 '24 at 13:58
  • @d_e What do you mean when saying that "even if theoretically/syntactically AA is temporal"? In my opinion, from a "syntactic/theoretical" point of view, the AA is not basically temporal: i.e. theoretically speaking, AAs do not have semantic interpretations that are inherently associated to them. Rather the temporal and causal interpretations, i.a., are to be drawn from each particular context. – Mitomino Mar 25 '24 at 16:10
  • @Mitomino, in short I don't see how we can distinguish between the two readings suggested. I say AA (despite its name) has semi-causal attributes. – d_e Mar 25 '24 at 16:23
  • @d_e Just to clarify the point, the two readings suggested in my question have to do with two different syntactic environments. The 2nd option above is not an AA. So I understand that what you mean is that, within the 1st option above, one cannot in principle (cf. your "theoretically/syntactically" above) distinguish between the temporal & the causal interpretations of the AA. Yes, I agree with you in this respect but I don't agree with you when saying that the "AA has semi-causal attributes". As noted, these "attributes" are external to the AA: i.e. they are given by the particular context. – Mitomino Mar 25 '24 at 16:43

0 Answers0