Non-interrogative uses of particle "an"

[Ursinus]

I have a question. What is the sense of the particle "an" when it is used non-interrogatively. I am thinking about the following lines in particular from Cicero: "An vero vir amplissimus, P. Scipio, pontifex maximus, Ti. Gracchum mediocriter labefactantem statum rei publicae privatus interfecit: Catilinam orbem terrae caede atquae incendiis vastare cupientem nos consules perferemus?"

What's the function of the particle?

[Barry Hofstetter]

It would appear to fit this usage:

D. The first part of the interrogation is freq. not expressed, but is to be supplied from the context; in this case, an begins the interrog., or, or rather, or indeed, or perhaps (but it does not begin an absolute, i. e. not disjunctive, interrog.): De. Credam ego istuc, si esse te hilarem videro. Ar. An tu esse me tristem putas? (where nonne me hilarem esse vides? is implied), Plaut. As. 5, 1, 10: Ch. Sed Thais multon ante venit? Py. An abiit jam a milite? Ter. Eun. 4. 5, 7: An ego Ulixem obliscar umquam? Att. Trag. Rel. p. 199 Rib.: An parum vobis est quod peccatis? Vulg. Josh. 22:17: est igitur aliquid, quod perturbata mens melius possit facere quam constans? an quisquam potest sine perturbatione mentis irasci? Cic. Tusc. 4, 24, 54; cf. id. Clu. 22; id. Off. 3, 29: Debes hoc etiam rescribere, sit tibi curae Quantae conveniat Munatius; an male sarta Gratia nequiquam coit …! or is perhaps, etc., Hor. Ep. 1, 3, 31 K. and H.—So esp. in Cic., in order to make the truth of an assertion more certain, by an argumentum a minore ad majus: cur (philosophus) pecuniam magno opere desideret vel potius curet omnino? an Scythes Anacharsis potuit pro nihilo pecuniam ducere, nostrates philosophi non potuerunt? Cic. Tusc. 5, 32, 89 sq.: An vero P. Scipio T. Gracchum privatus interfecit, Catilinam vero nos consules perferemus? id. Cat. 1, 1; so id. Rab. Perd. 5; id. Phil. 14, 5, 12 Muret.; id. Fin. 1, 2, 5, ubi v. Madv.—It sometimes introduces a question suggested by the words of another...

Lewis, C. T., & Short, C. (1891). Harpers’ Latin Dictionary (p. 114). New York; Oxford: Harper & Brothers; Clarendon Press.

[mwh]

It’s an interesting rhetorical use, and it is actually interrogative, though the use of the colon after interfecit may obscure the fact.

Without the an we’d have a simple chiasmus with multiple contrasts: “Scipio—as a private citizen—killed Tiberius Gracchus—who was only mildly damaging the republic. Shall we—as consuls—put up with Catiline—who is bent on destroying the world?!”* Scipio took drastic action against Gracchus even though he had no authority to do so, while Cicero presents himself as reprehensibly failing to take action against the infinitely more destructive Catiline even though he does have the authority to do so (or so he insinuates).

*This inevitably destroys the chiasmus of P.Scipio … Ti.Gracchum: Catilinam … nos, as well as the effect of the clausular interfecit and perferemus. Translation absolutely ruins Cicero when he's on this kind of a roll.

With the an it’s rhetorically still more complicated. It’s important that it follows on the previous sentence, “ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportet …” (The consul ought to have had you killed long since.) The follow-up is this indignant “an … perferemus?” “Or (do you mean to tell me) we're just going to put up with Cat’s outrageous behavior?” Tolerating the intolerable Cat. is the deplored alternative (“an”) to having him killed as he ought to. The contrasting exemplum of Scipio’s having Gracchus killed is incorporated within the question. “Or is it really the case that while Scipio for his part …, we for our part …?!?!”

In suggesting that he’s guilty of dereliction of duty in failing to have Catiline executed, Cicero is really aiming to protect himself against accusations of exceeding his consular authority in acting against him and driving him into exile. Cicero is the ultimate spin doctor, and we should remember that his published speeches are a PR exercise.

Edit. I see L&S (pasted by Barry) juxtapose this with Cic.’s “cur (philosophus) pecuniam magno opere desideret vel potius curet omnino? an Scythes Anacharsis potuit pro nihilo pecuniam ducere, nostrates philosophi non potuerunt?” which is rather more straightforward but closely comparable.

[Ursinus]

Thanks for that explanation. I had a hunch that it might have been being used interrogatively.