Does "ita" Have Two Roles: Part of Construction "ut...ita" & Functioning as an Intensifier in the Same Complex-Conditional Sentence?

Question

In North & Hillard Ex. 210 Blosius is summoned before the Consuls and told to denounce his late friend, Gracchus; or, face execution.

The whole passage is to be translated into Latin: this part of Blosius' reply:

If you, Consuls, should bid me save my life by accusing Gracchus, I would not so save it.

The Answer Book gives:

si vos, Consules, me iubeatis me ipsum ea lege servare ut Gracchum accusem, non ita me incolumem faciam.

A complex-conditional sentence: improbable conditions using the present subjunctive in both clauses. The fulfilment of the condition is improbable but possible. (Given Blosius' attitude, impossible conditions might have been more appropriate.)

Clearly Blosius is told to condemn Gracchus and then his life will be spared. This ordering of events may not be achieved by "ut" alone ("You bid me save my life "with the result that"/ "in order that" I accuse...") which reverses the timeline. The construction "ut...ita" = "in such a way" preserving the timeline: "You bid me save my life in such a way that I (would) accuse Gracchus."

Note that N & H achieved this (timeline) by translating "ut" = "by"; most efficacious, but I can find no listing for "ut" = "by" (Oxford & Wiki).

The second thing: the English requires intensifier "so" in: "...I would not so save it." Conveniently placed, in this separate clause (from "ut"), is "ita" = "so", from the construction "ut...ita".

I know that top translators do not attempt to translate every word (as I like to do); it may be that "so" can be omitted; but, if this is not the case then does "ita" fulfill this second use, as well?

Answer 1

In this case ita and ut are unrelated. There is a construction ita…ut, but it is not used here. You can drop the intensifier "so" or ita and the sentence works equally well. (The emphasis is good to have, but not strictly necessary.)

The suggestion from the book is unnecessarily complicated. One might even argue that it has two elements reversed by accident: it should be about accusing Gracchus so that you save yourself, not saving yourself so that you accuse Gracchus. The proposed phrasing does make sense (see Sebastian's answer), but it feels clumsy. The key to the suggestion is ea lege which connects with ut.

I would prefer to leave ea lege out entirely and say simply:

Si vos, Consules, me iubeatis Gracchum accusare ut me ipsum servem, non ita me incolumem faciam.
"If you consuls order me to accuse Gracchus so that I save myself, I would not make myself uninjured in such a way."

My English translation is clumsy, as it attempts to be faithful to the Latin structures.

The exercise is about writing your own Latin prose, not about hitting the exact same wording as the authors. There is rarely a good reason to compose something exotic when you are too uncomfortable or unfamiliar with it yourself, so I suggest sticking with simplicity. The overall structure of the sentence is necessarily a little complex, but there is no need to add more complexity on top of that.

Answer 2

The ut follows ea lege:

ea lege, ut …
under the condition that …

The key is to question what ea lege is doing in that sentence, especially since there is no context talking about some legislation or other. Lex can occasionally be used with ut + subjunctive (e.g. lex erat apud Romanos, ut …, the Romans had a law stipulating that …). So an overly literal translation would be: “under a law stipulating that …”

That lex can mean “condition” is definitely in the “exotic” category (ut nuncupavit Joonas), but it is mentioned in Lewis & Short (II.E). An expression with ut is given as an example, from Plautus, Mostellaria 2,1,13 (the spelling is also mangled in the online version, probably due to two scanning mistakes; I quote the correct version here):

Ego dabo ei talentum, primus qui in crucem excucurrerit;
sed ea lege, ut offigantur bis pedes, bis bracchia.
Ubi id erit factum, a me argentum petito praesentarium.

I'll give that man a talent [around 26 kg of silver] that first runs out to the cross;
but under the condition that his feet are fastened twice, his arms twice.
Right when that is done, let him ask me for the silver.

But the possibility of adding an ut clause is not expressly spelt out. It is also found in the Georges, which curiously only mentions ne + subjunctive, but it stands to reason that ut would work as well.

Thus we can read the whole sentence:

If you, Consuls, should decree that I save myself under the condition that I blame Gracchus, I would not ensure my wellbeing that way.