III.6-8 Notes

Etenim marks the climactic conclusion of the circumstances described in speculabuntur et costudient.  Often used, as here, to introduce a rhetorical question, it is a combination of et (emphatic, as in etiam) and enim (emphatic).

quid est quod:  a common idiom meaning what is there that [with indicative verb] or what is there for [you] to [with subjunctive verb].

expectes:  The subjunctive is a subordinate jussive subjunctive in a relative clause of purpose; hence, you translate for you to hope for.

si: Note that the si-clause is divided into two parallel clauses; the simple core of these parallels are:  neque nox obscurare coeptus (neither [can] night obscure gatherings)

nec domus continere voces  (nor [can] your homes contain your voices)

inlustrantur:  The subject is postponed until the end of the next si-clause.

iam:  Notice how often temporal adverbs, especially iam, occur; they all are responding to the initial impatience of quo usque tandem.

mihi crede:  This is not really parallel to the imperative muta; it is parenthetical, and carries with it a tone of mocking sollicitude.

caedis:  Verbs of remembering and forgetting may take the genitive case:  to be mindful or forgetful of.

Teneris undique: A repetition of the idea already expressed in the first paragraph:  teneri coniurationem tuam non vides.

quae is probably best thought of as a connective relative; that is, it connects two main clauses just like et and sed do.  The connective relative is best thought of as a form that combines a demonstrative (here, ea or haec) with a coordinating conjunction (here, et).  Translate:  And now you may recall these with me.

licet = it is permitted, it is allowed.  Here, Cicero is being quite condescending.  He declares that all of Catilines plans are clearer than light, and then adds that it is permitted for you to go over them now with me.

recognoscas:  Subordinate jussive subjunctive with licet:  It is permitted. Recall them with me. becomes it is permitted that you call them with me.

meministi:  After meministi you have indirect discourse.  Look for the subject-accusative and the infinitive to find the core of the indirect statement. 

[*] The subject-accusative is me dicere:  remember that I said.  This now creates a second subject-accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse.  The present infinitive usually indicates time contemporaneous with the introductory verb; it is sometimes used to indicate the continuous aspect of the imperfect tense if the specific temporal relationship is clear.

fore is an altenative form for futurum esse, the future infinitive of the verb to be.  The subject-accusative for fore is postponed, C. Manlium.

qui dies:  For the sake of clarity Cicero inserts the antecedent of qui (die) into the relative clause, qui dies.

esset:  Subjunctive in a subordinate clause in indirect discourse; equivalent to:  and [I said] this day was going to be the 6th day before the Kalends of November.

C. Manlius:  A centurion in the army of Sulla, he had had considerable military and revolutionary experience.

me fefellit:  Did it escape my knowledge ?  This is a repetition of the basic meaning of meministine? (Do you remember?), except fefellit does not take a construction in indirect discourse but a nominative.

non modo sed etiam (not only but also ) is very common and has several variations.  Here we find non modo verum , which is a clipped version of non modo verum etiam .

Tam is a deictic adverbial intensifier which combined with an adjective is parallel to tanta

id quod introduces a parenthetical comment.

dies means the very day on which it would happen.

Dixi:  Recall above:  meministine me dicere; here, he simply says dixi.

ego idem = I the same person = I also

optumatium: The optimates were the party of the best people, like the moral majority in the States, they were socially conservative, tended to equate goodness with goods, and claimed to uphold the traditional standards of Rome.

contulisse:  confero here = postpone

Roma:  Ablative of place from which with profugerunt.

sui:  The direct reflexive reflects the subject of its own clause; here,  multi.

conservandi:  The gerundive, sui conservandi, depends upon the causa which appears after the parallel gerundive, tuorum consiliorum repremendorum.

quam:  non tam quam:  another common comparative expression = not so much [one thing] as [another].  Here, notice the word order:  non tam sui quam tuorum = not so much concerning themselves as concering something of yours.  Then note the contrast between conservandi reprimendorum = preserving destroying . 

causa: It is disingenuous for Cicero to say that they fled not so much for the sake of saving their own skins as for the sake of destroying your plans. 

[*] Num infitiari potes is rhetorically another version of licet recognoscas, memninist me dicere, and so on.  Cicero is taunting Catiline with the completeness of his knowledge and the accuracy of his predictions during the past weeks.  The expression also introduces another subject-accusative + infinitive phrase.  Understanding this accusative + infinitive phrase depends upon identifying correctly the subject accusative.

te, coming immediately after an expression introducing indirect discourse is likely to be the subject accusative and you should make this provisional assumption.  As you then read you come upon illo ipso die in the ablative (ablative of time), meis praesidiis (another ablative; given the meaning of praesidium, guards, protection, it is probably an ablative of means), mea diligentia (parallel in form to meis praesidiis, and so probably another ablative of means standing for my diligent actions) and then the participle, circumclusum.  This participle appears to be accusative masculine singular, just like the pronoun te, and so you should take everything from te to circumclusum as a participle phrase, one long accusative which is probably the subject accusative to the infinitive after Num infitiari potes

commovere:  This looks like the infinitive you want, but it isnt.  I know that because of the sense of the sentence.  Under the circumstances the problem is that Cataline has yet to take an incriminating action.  It does not, then, make sense to say, can you deny that you are moving yourself.  Besides, the tense of commovere is wrong:  that you are now moving yourself.  As we read ahead we discover that the negative idea that this situation demands has been postponed:  non potuisse is the infinitive in indirect discourse, or, if you like, non potuisse commovere, since commovere is needed to complete the meaning of potuisse.  The core of the indirect discourse, then, is:  Num infitiari potes:  te non potuisse commovere te = Can you deny that you were not able to move yourself and now the tense is right as well.  The participle phrase is predicative and explains why Cataline could not make a move.

Cum with the indicative means at the time when; cum with the subjunctive means at a time when.  Here, the content could have been in the subjunctive if Cicero had wanted to say, although you were saying; that is, at a time when you were saying this, can you deny that .  But Ciceros statement is stronger:  he says, at the very time you were saying that you were content , can you deny that you were not able to move .

discessu: See the end of the note below on contentum te esse for the construction of discessu and caede.  For now, notice that they are both in the ablative case and that the construction:  discessu ceterorum | nostra caede is a chiasmus, that is, a rhetorical figure of speech in which the elements have the order A-B-B-A.

qui: The antecedent is the nos implied in the possessive adjective nostra; see note on contentum te esse for the structure of the indirect discourse.

remansissemus:  Pluperfect subjunctive in a relative clause in indirect discourse.  All subordinate clauses that are an actual part of the reported speech must take a verb in the subjunctive.  In effect, this mood of the verb subjoins the thought to the discourse of the other person.  On the entire indirect discourse, see next note.

contentum te esse:  this infinitive phrase is the core of the indirect statement.  that you were content, but this statement is not complete; one is content with something, with a set of circumstances, for instance, or because of something.  Both of these modifications take the ablative in Latin:  a circumstantial ablative or a causal ablative.  This tells us how to take the ablatives discessu and caede:  you were content with departure and slaughter. [return to discessu above]

quid: Little more than a way of transiting to the next point.  Given the context, with is the display of Ciceros foreknowledge of Catalines plans and actions, you should expect quid? to transit to another one of Ciceros foresightful and prudential actions.  In fact, if you skim the next sentence, you can see that what it is about:  cum te confiders = when you were confident sensistine? = did you have any idea meo iussu, meis praesidiis, custodiis, vigiliis = by my order, with my protection, guards, nightwatches.  Such an overview of a sentence often helps you get you your bearings.  (Of course, you have to be careful; if you have made a false assumption, such an overview can also really mislead you.)

Praeneste was an important stronghold overlooking Latium twenty miles south-east of Rome.  It would have been a strategic occupation for Cataline.

confideres:  cum tePraeneste occupaturum esse confideres:  confido takes an accusative-infinitive construction to indicate the object of ones confidence.  It is a kind of indirect discourse:  you were confident [thinking] that you would occupy Praeneste.

sensistine:  Did you have any idea . or did you have any inkling that ; Cicero is mocking in content and in rhetorical form:  he opposes the thought content of Catalines confidence to the sense he should have had.  It is this opposition, between Catilines confidence, and his ignorance, that leads some editors to say that the cum-clause is a concessive clause.  I think it is more effective not to translate although.  Similarly, -ne is not = nonne, as is sometimes said.  Cicero pretends to be asking an innocent questions:  Gee, did you know?

[*] A tri-colon that, on the one hand, is made of three short phrases, but, on the other, adds a large expansion after the third.  Is this a crescendo?  Note that the expansion is itself a tri-colon.

quod:  The antecedent is nihil nihil nihil , not just the last nihil.

non:  Latin idiom, or manuscript confusion, offers non modo non ... sed etiam and non modo ... sed etiam as equivalent expressions.  It appears to be a matter of whether the non can do double duty or not.

audiam:  The verb of a relative clause whose antecedent is a negative or non-existent entity must be in the subjunctive.  It is a potential subjunctive, because the entity is not an existent, but a potential.

sentiam:  This tri-colon is actually organized according to two independent systems.  First, it is a doublet crescendo built on non modo sed etiam non modo audiam | sed etiam videam planeque sentiam; and it is a tri-colon built on the verbs:  non modo audiam | sed etiam videam | planeque sentiam.