# Cicero templum esse apud Agrigentinos dixit



## Buonaparte

Dear Forum,

My textbook translates the sentence 'Cicero templum esse apud Agrigentinos dixit' as: Cicero said that there was a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.


Likewise, it translates 'Id affirmauit non long a foro esse' as: 'He declared that it was not far from the forum'.


My question is why the infinitive 'esse' translated as 'was' rather than 'is'? I would have thought that the perfect infinitive 'fuisse' would have been used to denote 'was'. 

Secondly, would the translation 'is' be acceptable?

Many thanks, Buonaparte


----------



## Outsider

Buonaparte said:


> Dear Forum,
> 
> My textbook translates the sentence 'Cicero templum esse apud Agrigentinos dixit' as: Cicero said that there was a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.
> 
> Likewise, it translates 'Id affirmauit non long a foro esse' as: 'He declared that it was not far from the forum'.
> 
> My question is why the infinitive 'esse' translated as 'was' rather than 'is'?


I don't know much Latin, but it seems logical to use the past tense because this is a reported speech. The statement was made in the past.

The infinitive _esse_ doesn't really translate (literally) as 'is', anyway. It means 'to be'. If I well understand it, the first sentence can be literally translated as 'Cicero said *there to be* a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum'; the infinitive is neither present nor past. But of course this doesn't work in English.


----------



## Buonaparte

Outsider,

If you wanted to convey past tense of the verb *to be* in reported speech you would use the perfect infinitive active, 'fuisse', wouldn't you? Instead the the textbook used the present infinitive active, 'esse', which it then translates as past tense in English. It's this shifting of tenses that I don't really comprehend. 

Buonaparte


----------



## Outsider

Buonaparte said:


> Outsider,
> 
> If you wanted to convey past tense of the verb *to be* in reported speech you would use the perfect infinitive active, 'fuisse', wouldn't you?


The way I see it, the infinitive does not have a past tense, neither in English nor Latin. Or rather, the infinitive is 'transparent' to the category of tense.   _Esse_ can be used for the past, the present, or the future without any change. Some authors may call _esse_ the "present infinitive" because it's the first form of the infinitive mood, but when there's only one tense in a mood that means very little. This is a "present" that can also act as past or future, semantically.

_Fuisse_ ("to have been") is the perfect form of _esse_ ("to be"), but perfect is not really the same as past, even if sometimes the two can olverlap to some extent.

P.S. Perhaps the short reply to your question, though, is that using _fuisse_ would imply that the temple no longer existed when Cicero spoke. It seems to me like that might be the case.

Wait for further opinions.


----------



## Flaminius

A present infinitive in the subordinate clause indicates that the event is happening (or happens) in the same period as that of the main clause.  In contrast, a perfect infinitive in the subordinate clause refers to an event that has happened before that in the main clause takes place.  An analogy in English would be:
1. There seems to be five mistakes here.
Existence of mistakes (to be) is assumed continuous at the time of narration (seems).
2. There seems to have been five horses here.
Existence of horses (to have been) is inferred by, indirect evidence such as different hoofed footprints.  The horses are gone at the time of narration (seems).


----------



## Imri

Cicero templum esse apud Agrigentinos dixit : Cicero said that there was a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum

Wouldn't it be a better translation : Cicero said that there was a temple near/close by the people of Agrigentum ?


----------



## Kael

When using an indirect statement in latin, 'esse' can be translated as 'was'.


----------



## judkinsc

It answer to the original question..."esse" is used in this way since the phrase is in indirect discourse, which mode is instituted by the verb "dico" (dixit), only one of the various verbs of thinking, believing, saying, reported speech or action, etc. that can so institute this mode of speech.

In indirect discourse, the infinitive of the verb is used to express the reported action, and the subject of the indirect discourse is in the accusative case. The tense of the translation follows from the tense of the verb which governs the indirect discourse, in this case "dixit"; thus the reported action is also in the perfect tense.

"Cicero hominem nasci apud Agrigentinos dixit" = "Cicero said a man was born among the Agrigenti." The construction is the same as the phrase presented in the question above.

"Among" is the best translation for "apud" into English, generally. It can also mean "at, by, near, among; at the house of; before, in the presence/writings/view of."

For instance, Cicero writes somewhere about a dinner that he had with someone-or-other, and uses the preposition "apud" to indicate that he was "with" or "at the house of" the man for dinner ("Dinner with F-something").

Also, the beginning of the gospel of John: In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum." "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word."


----------



## Cagey

Imri said:


> Cicero templum esse apud Agrigentinos dixit : Cicero said that there was a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum
> 
> Wouldn't it be a better translation : Cicero said that there was a temple near/close by the people of Agrigentum ?



Cicero can reasonably be understood to mean that the Agrigentini have a temple, rather that than there is one nearby.  This reading seems to me to make more sense.

The Lewis and Short dictionary explains the construction this way:
*apud* (6a) _Est aliquid apud aliquem = est alicui aliquid, apud aliquem _being equivalent to a 'dative of possesor'.​
That is: _templum esse apud Agrigentinos_ may be translated as if it were _Argrigentinis esse templum_.​
My own abridged dictionaries and grammars fail to mention this usage.


----------



## wonderment

I think that “_apud _+ person” is like the French “_chez_ + person” :  _apud me_ = _chez moi_ = at my place/home
-------

Direct statement: There is a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.
Indirect statement: Cicero says that there is a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.

In an indirect statement, the tense of the infinitive in the subordinate clause is relative to that of the main verb (regardless of the tense of the main verb). 

infinitive = present tense, if the action takes place at the same time as that of the main verb
infinitive = perfect tense if the action takes place before that of the main verb
infinitive = future tense if the action takes place subsequent to that of the main verb

e.g.:

_Cicero templum esse apud Agrigentinos dicit_ = Cicero says that there is a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.
_Cicero templum fuisse apud Agrigentinos dicit _= Cicero says that there was a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.
_Cicero templum futurum esse apud Agrigentinos dicit_ = Cicero says that there will be a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.

_Cicero templum esse apud Agrigentinos dixit _= Cicero said that there was a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum. 
_Cicero templum fuisse apud Agrigentinos dixit _= Cicero said that there had been a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.
_Cicero templum futurum esse apud Agrigentinos dixit _= Cicero said that there would be a temple belonging to the people of Agrigentum.

One caveat: If the indirect statement describes a general or continuing condition, it’s preferable to use the present tense in English to translate the infinitive.

e.g. _Vergilius amorem omnia vincere dixit _= Vergil said that love conquered conquers all. 

Valete


----------

