Infinitival impersonal passives

Question

The impersonal passive is a familiar construction:

Pugnatur. "There is fighting / people are fighting / etc."
Pugnatum est. "There was fighting / etc."

Here a finite passive verb is being used with an impersonal sense. To what extent can passive infinitives be used in the same way, for example in indirect speech constructions?

I think I've seen examples of the perfect passive infinitive:

Dicit pugnatum esse. "He says there was fighting."

But for some reason, I'm not sure I've ever seen present or future passive infinitives:

Dicit pugnari. "He says there is fighting."
Dicit pugnatum iri. "He says there will be fighting."

There's no particular a priori reason this construction should be limited to finite verbs or to only some tenses of the infinitive, but what does usage say? Are there examples of all tenses of the passive infinitive used impersonally?

Answer 1

Here is a relevant example where the present passive infinitive vivi is interpreted in an impersonal context after a verbum dicendi (negat) like in your examples above:

Negat Epicurus iucunde posse vivi, nisi cum virtute vivatur. (Cic. Tusc. 3, 49)

NB I: I've just found a nice variatio of this example in another work by Cicero, but this time with an indefinite subject: cf. the impersonal construction(s) above with At negat Epicurus -hoc enim vestrum lumen est- quemquam qui honeste non vivat iucunde posse vivere (Cic. Fin. 2.70).

---

Pinkster (2015: 270) gives some examples of your "non-problematic" type (i.e., with a perfect passive infinitive) in Section "5.21 The impersonal passive". E.g.:

Nunc tu, Cleostrata, / ne a me memores malitiose de hac re factum aut suspices, / tibi permitto: tute sorti (Pl. Cas. 393-5).

He also gives some examples of the future passive infinitive (supine + iri) in a subordinated impersonal context. E.g., cf. also 1(δ) in this link:

Ipsi vero nihil nocitum iri inque eam rem se suam fidem interponere (Caes. Gal. 5.36.2).

NB II: A similar example with the present passive infinitive noceri is given by Pinkster (2015: 270): namque ea materies (...) reicitque eius (sc. ignis) vim nec patitur ab eo sibi cito noceri (Vitr. 2.9.14). Here is another one: (...) pugnatumque ab hostibus ita acriter est ut a viris fortibus in extrema spe salutis (...) pugnari debuit (...) (Caes. Gal. 2.33.4)

---

Finally, take a look at Woodcock's (1959: 43) Section "60. The Impersonal Passive", where the following examples of present infinitives can be found:

Mihi numquam persuaderi potuit animos emori 'I could never be persuaded that our souls died' (Cic. De Sen. 80).

Vult sibi quisque credi 'Each man wishes to be believed' (Livy 22, 22, 14).

SOURCES:

Pinkster, H. (2015). The Oxford Latin Syntax. Vol. I. Oxford: OUP.

Woodcock, E. C. (1959). A New Latin Syntax. London: Methuen.

Answer 2

The present passive tense of the infinitive e.g. "amari" = "to be loved"; "moneri" = "to be warned".

He says the enemy are being defeated = "dicit hostes superari".

In Mitomino's last two examples: the Romans understood "persuadeo" as "make sweet or agreeable to" (+ dative); therefore: "mihi numquam persuaderi potuit…" = "it was never possible to be made agreeable to me..."; "credo" as "be trusting to" (+ dative); "vult sibi quisque credi" = "everyone wants to be trusting to them (the people)".

The perfect passive tense of the infinitive e.g. "amatus esse" = "to have been loved"; "monitus esse" = "to have been warned":

He says the enemy have been defeated = "dicit hostes superatos esse".

The future: Latin does not really have a future infinitive passive, (present-tense "to be" already implies the future e.g. I want to be loved) so a hotch-potch future infinitive appears to have been created by adding "iri" to the supine of the verb. The word "iri" is the passive infinitive of "eo", being used impersonally (i.e. having a meaning such as "it is gone" or "there is a going"). Adding the supine of a verb (which after a verb of motion has the meaning "in order to...") and using it in an indirect statement e.g. "dicit urbem oppugnatum iri" = "he says that there is a going in order to attack the city". From this the translation rendered "he says that the city is going to be attacked".

Similarly: He says that the enemy will be defeated = "dicit hostes superatum iri."

Note: it is not "superatos" because of the impersonal use, cf. the neuter of the gerundive used in impersonal construction e.g. "Bibendum" = "it ought to be drunk" (again "to be" implies the future.)

Take a look at Q: Instances of the future passive infinitive and Q: Is 'volo' ever used with a future infinitive?.