A Conditional Sentence in Direct and Indirect Speech

Question

In the film "Spartacus" (1960) Marcus Publius Glabrus, having just lost six cohorts of the garrison of Rome, in an ill-starred attempt to crush the slave-uprising in its incipient stages, is summoned to the Senate for a debriefing. Senator Gracchus rises to his feet:

"If we had punished every commander, who made a fool of himself, we'd have no-one left above the rank of centurion."

Translating this into both direct & indirect speech: it's a conditional sentence; impossible conditions (it did not happen: we did not punish every commander). In advanced texts e.g. Allen & Greenough "impossible conditions" is called "contrary-to-fact" i.e. "counterfactual".

FIRST CLAUSE: (The protasis: a statement of the condition.)

A counterfactual condition, in the past tense, requiring a pluperfect subjunctive for the verb.

SECOND CLAUSE:

A relative "qui" clause. In direct speech the verb is in the indicative.

THIRD CLAUSE: (The apodosis: the result of the condition.)

The present-tense consequence of action/ inaction, in the past, requiring the imperfect subjunctive.

TRANSLATION:

"si puniissemus (punivissemus) omnem imperatorem, qui se ludificatus est, neminem (relinquentem) maioris ordinis centurione haberemus."

INDIRECT SPEECH:

Gracchus told the Senators that if they had punished every commander, who had made a fool of himself, they would have no-one left above the rank of centurion."

Rules for changing a condition contrary-to-fact into indirect speech are given in (A & G) section 589; 3(b): p.383; (https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/conditions in indirect discourse)

FIRST CLAUSE:

The protasis always remains unchanged in tense.

SECOND CLAUSE:

The relative clause will require the accusative-infinitive construction for indirect speech.

THIRD CLAUSE:

(A & G): "The apodosis, if active, takes a peculiar infinitive form, made by combining the participle in -urus with fuisse."

TRANSLATION:

Gracchus Senatoribus narravit si punissisent (punivissent) omnem imperatorem, quem se ludificatum esse, neminem (relinquentem) maioris ordinis centurione habituros fuisse.

Are the two translations correct?

Answer 1

A number of points:

• I do not think se ludificari is an appropriate translation for “make a fool of oneself.” As I wrote in the comments, I would prefer: ⋯ qui stultitia se dedecoravit (who disgraced himself through foolishness).

• Relative clauses in counterfactual condicional clauses often take on the subjunctive of the governing clause, which is called attractio modi. The pluperfect subjunctive is dedecoravisset, which is quite a mouthful, though it can at least be shortened to dedecorasset.

• Relinquere does the one who leaves. The one who is left is therefore relictus. There is also a related, more or less synonymous word named reliquus. Instead of neminem relictum/reliquum haberemus you could also say neminem retineremus, but I am not sure that is necessarily better.

• I am also unsure about maior ordo centurione. I think a higher rank should at least be superior instead of maior. I also changed the word order with Hor. C. 3,30 in mind ;-)

So I would translate the direct-speech version thus:

Si puniissemus omnem imperatorem, qui stultitia se dedecorasset, neminem ordinis centurione superioris reliquum haberemus.

For the second part:

• Narravit seems an unusual choice, I would have gone with a simple dixit.

• Punissisent should be punivissent (or puniissent).

• Relative clauses in an AcI context do not become AcI themselves. They retain the finite verb, but stand in the subjunctive mood, following the c.t.

So we end up with:

Gracchus Senatoribus dixit si punivissent omnem imperatorem, qui stultitia se dedecorasset, neminem ordinis centurione superioris reliquum habituros fuisse.