Latin Prose Composition - Fall 2007
HomePage
Syllabus for Latin 395A
Assignments for Latin 395A
If you wish to create a wiki page for your Word Lists, please do so beneath Kyle's.
Kyle's Word Lists
Kyle's innovation here is excellent. Although not making this a requirement, I invite everyone in our course to post their word lists on the wiki. Why not? It certainly doesn't have to be an exercise in copying one another's work, because different readers of the same passage may have different interpretations about the most appropriate meanings of lexical items in a particular context.
Important: Please Begin each of your questions, observations, and responses with your first name.
Lindsey- In about themiddle of the passage, are milibus prohibentibus and domita vi ablative absolutes? Also, I couldn't find traiectum. Is it an adj or some pp? In the second to last sentence, I couldn't find moretur in the dictionary.
1. Week I 08.27 - 08.31
2. Week II 09.04 - 09.07
Emily
"Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus..." -Catullus
BriAnne - Hooray Emily! Hooray Catullus! and also, Hooray Wiki!
Kyle - I can type in colors!
BriAnne- Hooray Kyle! Hooray Colors! ok real question now... What the heck is timendo? I know it's ablative and probably some kind of participle, but I'm having trouble making it sound nice in english, which I realize isn't the point, but still... help?
Kyle - I haven't looked at the passage yet, but just out of context, timendo has all the signs of a dative or ablative gerund.
Colleen - I love that Emily quoted Catullus. I miss dear Catullus. Serious questions will probably be coming from me later.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- this is a very odd variation of moodle/blackboard!
Kyle - What kind of clause do the two uts at the bottom of page 7 trigger? noun result clause, subjects of cadit. See NLG 569.2.
LinZ: "Had a game, had a game, had a technical game,/ By the name, by the name, called a technical game . . . " -Nilsson's The Point. Dubious web work.
3. Week III 09.10 - 09.14
Emily - okay, this isn't about the REX reading, it's about 1.8. I am really confused about impersonal passives. The example they give leaves out the subject (homines) altogether. Am I supposed to drop the subject from each sentence or change it to "there was a blanking BY such-and-such"? And if the latter is the case, do I use a, ab + the ablative or do I use the dative of agent? This is what I get for doing Latin homework on a Friday night, confusion!
Emily, your question goes right to the heart of the matter. We do find agent information in sentences that use the impersonal passive. The usual construction is ab plus the ablative, though we find the dative of agent if the impersonal passive uses the gerundive, e.g. Romanis pugnandum est. (There must be a fighting by the Romans, i.e. The Romans must fight.)
LinZ- I found this part confusing, too. I tried writing it out in English first, then in the Latin, to make sure it made sense. It helped a little, but I'm not very confident concerning impersonal passives. And, how does one go about making a word-list on wiki? I'm not really understanding the word-list in general, actually.
BriAnne- Yeah, so I guess this is what I get for running off to texas to see the boyfriend and waiting to do my latin homework until monday, but I am incredibly confused on these exercises. I was okay on 1.8, sort of, but 1.9 is really kicking my butt. Are they all the main verbs in their sentences? Because some of them look more like they'd be participles and such. And how am I supposed to know what tense to use? I'm not a happy latinist.
BriAnne's questions about 1.9:
The directions tell us to change the infinitives in parentheses into participles, so the participles wouldn't be main verbs unless there is a context where they would be used along with some form of esse.
Because some of them look more like they'd be participles and such. I'm not sure what BriAnne means by this. Everything in parentheses is an infinitive.
As for the appropriate tense for the participles, we determine this by thinking about the temporal logic of the narrative. If the action expressed by the participle occurred once, the tense should be perfect; if continuous, then present. We have to scratch our heads a bit to figure out the last sentence: Re publica (tueri). Let's talk about this in class.
Emily - I have a question about 2.9. In phrase d, are we supposed to add all three words in parenthesis (meus aegre meos) as one entity, or are the three words to be added separately in their appropriate places...? I'm a little confused with that phrase. The words in parentheses are to be added separately in their appropriate places.
Kyle - I wondered the same thing, but I just put it all together because there were no other instances of using two separate words.
3. 1. Questions, Responses, and Observations about REX 2.4 belong here.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- "cogitare...sit" indirect question?? I'm finding Cicero to be challenging, and I agree that it might be the brevity of his thoughts that makes it difficult. quam id honestum sit - Yes, indirect question.
Emily - I am semi-confused about the meaning of "quasi" from the reading, as my dictionary lists it as meaning...oh, wait, as I type this I think I understand what it means. Also, I think it is quite unusual how Cicero goes on about how it is noble to bear pain quietly and calmly, yet speaks of how men die in battle because they won't admit they are wounded. I guess that is philosophy for you.
LinZ- I found quasi as meaning "so to speak" and similar things. Is honestatis a participle? What does it go with? I have a hard time getting the real meaning behind these little passages. Maybe it's because they're so short, there's not a whole lot of room for expounding. Cicero's not translating too bad, though. As a noun in the genitive, honestatis goes with studiosissimi and adpetentissimi.
Kyle - Honestatis comes from honestas. It means good reputation or respectability.
Colleen - I agree with Kathryn-Alizabeth. I'm finding these Cicero excerpts difficult. Is "ad ferendum" some type of gerundive construction? And does anyone know whether "mori" comes from "morum, -i" or "morus, -i", meaning a black mulberry tree? ad ferendum ... dolorem, a gerundive expression = "for bearing pain"
Kyle - Mori comes from morior, mori, mortuus sum. It means to die.
Colleen - Thank you, Kyle. I was wondering what a tree was doing in there.
Here is a good, concise introduction to the Tusculan Disputations, trans. C. D. Yonge (New York: 1877):
In the year a.u.c. 708, and the sixty-second year of Cicero’s age, his daughter, Tullia, died in childbed; and her loss afflicted Cicero to such a degree that he abandoned all public business, and, leaving the city, retired to Asterra, which was a country house that he had near Antium; where, after a while, he devoted himself to philosophical studies, and, besides other works, he published his Treatise de Finibus, and also this treatise called the Tusculan Disputations, of which Middleton gives this concise description:
“The first book teaches us how to contemn the terrors of death, and to look upon it as a blessing rather than an evil;
“The second, to support pain and affliction with a manly fortitude;
“The third, to appease all our complaints and uneasinesses under the accidents of life;
“The fourth, to moderate all our other passions;
“And the fifth explains the sufficiency of virtue to make men happy.”
It was his custom in the opportunities of his leisure to take some friends with him into the country, where, instead of amusing themselves with idle sports or feasts, their diversions were wholly speculative, tending to improve the mind and enlarge the understanding. In this manner he now spent five days at his Tusculan villa in discussing with his friends the several questions just mentioned. For, after employing the mornings in declaiming and rhetorical exercises, they used to retire in the afternoon into a gallery, called the Academy, which he had built for the purpose of philosophical conferences, where, after the manner of the Greeks, he held a school, as they called it, and invited the company to call for any subject that they desired to hear explained, which being proposed accordingly by some of the audience became immediately the argument of that day’s debate. These five conferences, or dialogues, he collected afterward into writing in the very words and manner in which they really passed; and published them under the title of his Tusculan Disputations, from the name of the villa in which they were held.
4. Week IV 09.17 - 09.21
Emily - I have a question about 3.2 Exercise a. Am I supposed to only answer the main question for part a., Ubi commorabatur Plinius Minor una cum avunculo? and then fill in the blanks, or am I supposed to be answering every question that begins Ubi erat ille? I am a bit confused (as usual). Oh, and does num really mean "surely not...?" in questions?
All the blanks in this exercise should be filled in, BUT the sentences you're completing aren't answers. They're just questions asking where Pliny was. Was he in Naples? Was he in Misenum? etc. The point of the exercise is to practice various locative constructions.
Emily - I've read the section in Intro to LPC about location, but I'm still confused about domus. It says that when domus is used by itself or with a possessive adjective it is in the locative, but with any other adjective, it is paired with in. Would a noun in the genitive be considered a possessive adjective in this case?
Emily, see my response to Kathryn-Alizabeth and Colleen in section 4.2 below.
4. 1. Questions, Responses, and Observations about REX 3.1 belong here.
Before getting into specifics of grammar and syntax in REX 3.1, I note an interesting question about the Roman calendars. Under the old calendar
(prior to Julius Caesar's revision with the help of Egyptian astronomers) the year was divided into ten months of 304 days. The 61 irrational days were consigned to the winter season, unreckoned and ignored. Martius was the first month, July was Quintilis (the fifth) and August Sextilis (the sixth), and so on through Decembris (the tenth). The Julian calendar brings 365 days to the year, divided into 12 months, a system that has essentially changed not a bit in the modern era.There's a syntactic construction in the first sentence that students may not have seen before - quo verius tradere posteris possis. This is a type of relative clause expressing purpose. As NLG section 531.2.a. observes, The ablative quo (= ut eo) is used as a conjunction in final clauses which contain a comparative. The following English equivalent might make it easier to see the purpose relation: by which more truly you may be able to pass on to posterity.
Emily - I am having a bit of trouble with the sentence starting with "quamvis." I figured out that it is a concessive clause, but I'm unsure of what the double "ut" implies, as well as how each piece of the sentence forms a coherent thought that is translatable into English. The two uts are comparative. as peoples and cities sc. have perished
BriAnne-Yeah, Emily I had trouble with that sentence too. My main complaint, though, is that Pliny seems to have a problem using words that I can find in my dictionary. Can anyone help with victurus, mansura, Kal, or intuentibus? And also, I can't figure out why Miseni is genitive. It's the name of the town, yes? And theres not really any nominative thing in the vicinity that it could be modifying, and there's no reason for it to be plural, unless there are two towns with the same name that operate as one town, while staying completely independent of each other. I just don't find that very likely, though.
Miseni is the locative case of Misenum. LPC (Minkova) p. 82 mentions the locative construction, although briefly. There's more discussion in NLG, q.v. in indice, s.v. LOCATIVE.
Kyle - Kal stands for the Kalends, which is a word in Roman dating. Nonum goes with it somehow. I never learned the dating system. Also, the first paragraph has me completely baffled. It's like all my Latin knowledge flew out the window. I stared at it for two hours, but nothing came to me.
For the Romans' system of giving dates, see NLG (Allen and Greenough) sections 631 and 424.g.
BriAnne- That's how I feel with the whole thing. Also, I'd like to point out that this assignment is a lot longer than our other assignments so far this semester. I looked at the assignments page on sunday afternoon and realized I was already way behind, so I've pretty much been doing latin for the past two days straight. Right now I'm stuck on pg 14, Magnum propiusque...visum. Any one want to clue me in as to why there is no verb in that sentence?
When you have a clause with adjectives and no explicit verb, try understanding an appropriate form of sum. Here the thought is it was a great thing and worth investigating more closely, as it seemed to the very learned man (i.e. Pliny's uncle).
Linz- I pretty much have a page full of words and no sentences. The second sentence is very long and has several verbs and parts . . . how do you decide which verb is the main verb when there's five of them? I think you mean the third sentence (Quamvis ... addet.) In any event, the key is to read linearly, and be careful to note where subordinate conjunctions fall.
Emily - To BriAnne, victurus, mansura I have taken to be the future participles of their corresponding verbs...and intuentibus is either the abl. or dat. of intueor. How they work in the sentence, though, is beyond me...Oh, and Miseni is a place name, if that helps...it's the city of Misenum. The subject of that sentence is "he," as in Pliny's uncle ( erat = he was). And yes, Kyle, the first paragraph was particularly difficult for me as well...
Emily is right about the participles that puzzled BriAnne. victurus from vivo and mansura from maneo.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- was anyone able to find a translation for "verius"??? Is it another genitive form of "verus" instead of verorum? I'm not finding Pliny much better than Cicero. verius is a comparative adverb derived from the adjective verus = more truly.
Linz- I'm trying to polish up the Pliny translation and can't find anything for Rectinae Tasci. I figure it's either a name in the genitive or a town in the locative. I'm leaning towards a town, based on ascendit . . . auxilium. I'm also having trouble wityh exterritae. Is it from the verb exterreo- exterrere?
Good question. Rectinae is genitive with codicillos. Rectina is the wife of Tascius (husband's name in the genitive). And exterritae is perfect passive participle of exterrere, modifying Rectinae.
4. 2. Questions About 3.2.a
Kyle - I don't really understand the instructions. Am I supposed to say "yes, he was in that city" or "no, he wasn't in that city" after I write the question?
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I can only guess that since "num" is supposed to expect a negative response, we're supposed to answer in a "no" format, but I'm probably entirely wrong.
The idea is just to fill in the blanks with the proper locative expression. You're not supposed to answer any questions at all. The first question is simply: Num Neapoli erat?
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Thanks! I make these assignments much more difficult than they ought to be.
Colleen - KA, you always do that! Just kidding. I was confused, too. I'm still wondering about domus amicorum, though. In its discussion of the locative, LPC does not define an ordinary adjective. I'm guessing that amicorum is a possessive adjective here.
KA and Colleen - Nice attention to detail. Emily raised the same question above. Sometimes issues of Latin usage are not clear-cut. Searching Latin texts I found support for a locative construction domi amicorum (= at the home of friends); however, I wouldn't claim that in amicorum domo does violence to good standards of Latinity. To me, the preposition with domo emphasizes the physical structure rather than home is the sense of home sweet home.
BriAnne- Little bitty words like rus always throw me off. Is the stem ru-? Is the locative rui? The dictionary listing is rus, ruris, n.
5. Week V 09.24 - 09.28
5. 1. Questions, Responses, and Observations about this week's assignment for REX 3.1 belong here.
Emily - I'm only really having trouble making sense of the last sentence in our assigned reading. I think I understand what Pliny means, but what exactly are ratio rationem and timorem timor doing in the sentence?
Both of the nominatives are subjects of vicit. Both of the accusatives are direct objects of vicit. (Reason overcame reason. Fear overcame fear.)
Emily - Oh, and I thought Pliny the Younger's description of his uncle's snoring to be quite humorous, especially since it is to be noted in this great history by Tacitus...
Linz- I know this isn't poetry, but I still love to consider the possible meanings. Just in the first sentence Iam navibus cinis incidebat, quo propius accederent, calidior et densior I love that on can read it as not only ashes falling upon them, but death falling upon them- which is, of course, what eventually happens. That was my happy trhought as I started this translation, just thought I'd share.
Kyle - I'm having a difficult time with quorum fulgor et claritas tenebris noctis excitabatur. What is the antecedent of quorum?
The antecedent could be strictly understood as incendia or it could include flammae.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- sorry, but that was a "happy thought" linz???? they're dying! how about an observation?!! ok, so in the second line "iam pumices...litora obstantia" I'm translating it with an understood "to be" right? I'm only finding substantized participles, that is- "subitum" is it supposed to be translated as an adjective or substantized?? i've gone with the latter decision.
We can understand with subjects pumices and lapides a verb incidebant (from incidebat in the first line of the second paragraph, p. 14). In the clause after lapides we can understand erat and erant: 0=erat vadum subitum and 0=erant litora obstantia. NB My shorthand "0=" means a syntactic element is to be understood.
Colleen - How did Pliny the younger know what happened to his uncle? From the accounts of those who went with him but survived? yes indeed.
Emily - I wondered about that too, Colleen. How close were they to the actual eruption, because didn't it wipe out most everything/everyone? I guess someone with Pliny the Elder or at least who knew what he'd been doing survived so they could report it to Pliny the Younger...
Pliny tells us he interviewed some who witnessed the eruption first-hand. He indicates his concern for accurate detail in his account to his friend Tacitus. Colleen and Emily raise interesting questions about the extent of destruction in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. I found some comparisons of volcanic eruptions
published by the USGS. Vesuvius has been assigned a VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index) of 5, which is barely large according to some scientists. The volume of ejecta is reported as about one cubic mile. That would put Stabiae and Misenum beyond the range of total destruction.5. 2. REX 5.4 (Salustii Cat. 31)
Linz- Concerning Sallustii Cat. 31: How do I handle all the infinitives in the second sentence, festinare . . . metiri ? There are aeveral more in the following sentance, but I want to try those out on my own once I get some help. Respondez rapidement, svp!
Emily - Linz, the infinitives are what's known as the historical infinitive. I assume that's what Milena means by calling attention to Sallust being "archaic." The historical infinitive takes the place of an imperfect indicative (in other words, you can just translate it as finite verbs in the past). I was confused too, so I just translated it how I saw fit, then looked in Allen and Greenough. It's point 463, I think... Exactly. NLG section 463. LPC 1.b) (p. 4) also mentions the historical infinitive.
Kyle - Darn. I just missed Dr. Clark's answer time. Oh well. I'm having a tough time with quae(l. 2). I think it's nominative, plural with laetitia atque lascivia as its antecedents, but then how can quies be nominative as well? It just doesn't make sense to me. Even if quae isn't nominative, plural, then it has to be accusative, plural with something neuter as its antecedent, which I don't see. Help.
Good questions. quae at line 2 is neuter acc. pl., direct object of pepererat. The neuter gender collects and generalizes the two antecedents laetitia and lascivia.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Sallust is so direct, so many historical infinitives! And as far historical narrating he's much more focused than Pliny.
BriAnne- I switched very quickly from working on my screenplay to working on Latin composition, and I have to admit, I'm totally confused as to whether I wrote the right type of thing for the free composition. Did anyone else have problems?
6. Week VI 10.01 - 10.05
NB I've created sections below for comments/questions about REX 5.8 and 5.10.
6. 1. REX 5.8
BriAnne- I don't know how well this bodes for the rest of the passage, but I am having trouble with the very first word. Is Volturcius a name?
Emily - BriAnne, I am taking that to be someone's name, I may be right, I may be wrong.
Kyle - The ius ending tells me that it might be a comparative adjective or adverb, but what it comes from, I cannot say.
BriAnne- Yeah, the passage didn't get much better for me. Boo, Sallust.
Titus Volturcius was one of Catiline's co-conspirators. He was granted immunity from prosecution and turned informer. With others, he accompanied the ambassadors of the Allobroges, taking them to Catiline. The ambassadors were in Rome to plead for relief from debt and taxes and were seen by the Catilinarians as prospective allies against the senate.
Other names in the Sallust excerpt in REX 5.8 --
Lentulus, a leader of the conspiracy in Rome
P. Gabinius, an eques, another leader of the conspiracy
Emily - I am having a little trouble with uti gesta erant. Is gesta erant just the perfect passive indicative of gero? And I am assuming that I take uti as "as" and not in subordination since there isn't a subjunctive after it... pluperfect passive. and uti = "as".
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Is is "ubi" supposed to be used here as an indication of time "when"??I had a little bit of trouble trying to fit "ubi" into a coherent translation along with the ablatives "publica fide."
6. 2. REX 5.10
Linz- in 5.10, some of the words are in a case but not italicized. Since the instructions say they can be changed, are these endings suggestions, or are they there to make the excersize less easy/ more complicated?
Emily - Linz, I changed the endings on the un-italicized words to fit the sentences I constructed, since it said that was allowed in the instructions...
BriAnne - Emily, I'm just starting 5.10, and the instructions say the italicized words should stay in the order and form they are already in. Does anyone else feel like these are not really exercises as much as they are Latin word puzzles?
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I agree w/you brianne! composing sentences is like a maze for me, but then I'm terrible at grammar so this just doesn't click for me. I'm treating the italicized words as my main focus of the sentence right now, i'll see how that goes.
6. 3. REX: Free Composition, p. 31
NB The links in this section will take students to subordinate wiki pages. Your compositions belong there. Just click on the link for your composition, then edit that page as you would any other.
BriAnne's Composition Cf. Corrigenda. (See my corrections.)
Colleen's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Emily's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Kathryn Alizabeth's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Kyle's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Linz's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
6. 4. Sallustii Coniuratio Catilinae 51.6-15
Questions/comments on the handout assignment for 4 October go here.Emily - I am having trouble finding the meaning for exuperat from line 13 on page 38...my dictionary doesn't list anything like it...
Try exsupero (surpass, exceed).
BriAnne- Can anyone help me with bellis punicis omnibus in the first line? I know it's either dative or ablative plural, and I suspect that it goes with the quaerebant at the end of the sentence, since everything else seems to be parts of other subordinate clauses. I just don't know how to translate it. Also, am I correct in thinking that fecere in line 7 is that shortened form of fecerunt?
Kyle - I can say for sure that fecere is standing in for fecerunt. Sallust does this a lot more throughout the passage.
bellis punicis omnibus = "during all the Punic wars" (a time expression; cf. LPC p. 88)
Colleen - Oh no! I wasn't able to make it to class, so I don't have the handout. I suppose I will look for Sallustii Coniuratio Catilinae 51.6-15 on Perseus. Wish me luck! P.S. Dr. Clark, did you receive my email? I sent one to your Yale account on Tuesday. I attached my other homework, but I will bring a hard copy tomorrow, too. I got your e-mail, Colleen. Thanks.
BriAnne- Thanks, Kyle and Dr. Clark. Next question! In line 12, is novom some form of novus, -a, -um? novom = novum.
Colleen - Brianne, I think that's a good possibility, because Perseus's version contains novum there. I'm confused about the word item (line 1). A Lewis & Short translation suggests that it comes from ito and is present subjunctive active 1st singular. I don't see how that could fit in there. I'm also confused about utendum (I don't know what line it is for sure, because I'm using a Perseus version). Gerund or gerundive? That question gets me every time.
item is an adverb that means "likewise". utendum in this context (his utendum censeo) is a gerundive in indirect statement; esse is omitted. In other words, utendum 0=esse is indirect statement reporting an original utendum est, which is an impersonal passive construction. I hope this helps. We'll talk about this in class.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- just pointing out, "enumeravere," so not the infinitive meaning to reckon, but actually the conjugated verb "enumeraverunt" right? right!
7. Week VII 10.08 - 10.12
7. 1. Sallustii Coniuratio Catilinae 51.16-36
Even if you use another edition of the Latin text, check the handout for these page/line numbers: p. 39, line 7 (D. Silanum) through p. 40, line 29 (quis moderabitur?).Questions/comments on the handout assignment for 9 October go here.
Readers of Sallust will find this Index of Roman Laws
a useful and concise reference. Why does Caesar bring up the Lex Porcia, for example?Emily - I assume Caesar brought up the Lex Porcia to do with the whole idea of torture, since under that law, a person could not be flogged without appeal. I really enjoyed the historical example of the oligarchy in Athens that Caesar gives having just studied that last semester in Philosophy (through the trials of Socrates). I was confused about the sentence ii primo coepere pessumum quemque et omnibus invisum indemnatum necare, though. I'm not sure about the reason for both the -que and et, and all the perfect passive participles have left me a little overwhelmed...
- For pessumum quemque see Minkova LPC p. 111 (Quisque is placed afer suus or an adjective in the superlative degree.).
- True, invisum is pft. pass. ptc. of invideo, meaning here "hated by" or "hateful to", + dative (omnibus).
- indemnatum may be taken as a simple adjective meaning "uncondemned," i.e. without trial.
- Here's how I would translate this sentence: At first they began to execute any and everyone wicked and hated by all, without trial.
- The sentence is a fine study in the power of the periodic style to arrange ideas concisely and for maximum rhetorical effect. First the subject, then a verb raising the expectation for a complimentary infinitive (so we have to wait for the essential content of the predicate), next the direct object quemque and its modifiers, and finally the verb.
Linz- I'm having a slower time with this passage than the previous one. The little words are confusing me, such as eos and eam in eos mores eamque modestiam viri cognavi. I'm getting the gist of the sentence, but the translations choppy. Despite that, I'm really enjoying this Cesaer-by-way-of-Sallust as far as contents go. It's a good read, so to speak.
Kyle - I think the eos and eam are intensifiers, just there to add a little extra oomph to the sentence.
Colleen - I had the same question that Lindsey did, and I think Kyle's right. I also wondered about aliena a re publica nostra (Line 12). I assumed that a took on the meaning of "in respect to" in this context.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I'm finding that there are more assumed tenses of "esse" throughout this translation, that or I'm finding the need for them to make my translation readable.
7. 2. REX: Free Composition, p. 36
NB The links in this section will take students to subordinate wiki pages. Your compositions belong there. Just click on the link for your composition, then edit that page as you would any other.
BriAnne's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Colleen's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Emily's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Kathryn Alizabeth's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Kyle's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
Linz's Composition Cf. Corrigenda.
7. 3. Sallustii Coniuratio Catilinae 51.37-53 (for 11 October)
Kyle - I'm having trouble with quo minus aliena instituta. . .imitarentur. I saw in my dictionary that quo can take the place of ut if there is a comparative in the clause, which I guess is why imitarentur is subjunctive. Does it say "so that they could imitate foreign lands less?"
(BTW, Kyle's question comes up at 51.37.) See NLG 558b. - Verbs of hindering and refusing often take the subjunctive with ne or quominus. Note that quo minus in this construction may be written as one word or two. Here, obstabat stands as the verb of hindering.
Lindsey- Moi aussi, Kyle. I have minus as an adverb meaning by no means, not at all, not, and I know the sentence isn't saying that the ancestors by no means copied from other cultures because the next sentence staes the things they did copy. Qou looks like a singular ablative pronoun going with superbia instead of the conj wherefor. I saw the ut thing too, but I don't see anything for comparison. I understand that arrogance didn't stop them from imitating, but I don't know how to work the translation.
quo minus appears again in a later sentence, hanc ego ... puto, I found it easier/more comprehensible here.
Good parallel reference, Lindsey. (BTW, students should get in the habit of citing standard references to a text when these are available. Lindsey is thinking of 51.41.)
At 51.37, we could say "Arrogance didn't prevent them from imitating ...."
Lindsey- It's interresting how in ll 19-20 Sallust first uses the (I assume) archaic form of "and not," neu, and then shortly after uses the more modern form, neve.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- hey i'm unable to find a translation for "exequebantur" by dictionary says to see "exseq-" but "exsequor" doesn't seem to be right to me. was anyone able to get a translation for it?? i'm going with "endured" but its iffy.
(BTW, the reference in the text is 51.38.) exequebantur = exsequebantur. The meaning is just an intensive idea of following. Caesar is saying that the ancestors closely followed (i.e. adopted) what seemed suitable everywhere among their allies and their enemies.
Lindsey- Kathryn-Alizabeth, I used "carry out" for exsequebantur, as in "They were carrying out the customs/ suitable things."
In ll 19-20 that I mentioned earlier, I'm having trouble with the verbs, as there seems to be no handy subject. I thought it might be a case of "there should be a repeating," but referat isn't passive like the example I'm looking at (animadverteretur from last class), so I guess that's not it.
Lindsey is thinking of 51.43. quis (standing for the indefinite pronoun) is subject of referat, also of agat. neu and neve in this passage negate independent subjunctives of the jussive, i.e. hortatory, variety. "neither should anyone make a proposal hereafter to the senate nor bring it up with the people."
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Thank you Lindsey! I have yet another question, about "huiusce." so the "ce" is just an inseparable demonstrative particle (noted in cassell), it doesnt change the translation and I'm assuming that its still the genitive of 'hic' and just means "of this"?? And if so, why is "ce" even on there, is it something archaic?? just an archaism
Emily - I like huiusce...my dictionary gave the sort-of idiom of "this (here)" and all I could imagine was some good ol' Southern boy saying "this here..." I had a lot of trouble with these few lines, mainly just lining everything up in the correct order that makes sense, allowing the Latin to direct me. The directions were not so forthcoming this time, I'm afraid...
The question about huiusce comes up at 51.40.
The questions and comments on this assignment show improvement, though I'd like to encourage everyone to be as specific as possible about problems encountered in the text. For example, a comment that a reader had trouble with these few lines doesn't give me much to go on as I try to offer help.
Note that we have a couple of technical expressions in the sphere of political activity at 51.43.
- neu quis de iis postea ad senatum referat: referre ad senatum de (plus ablative) means to refer something to the senate.
- In legal and political contexts, agere cum populo means to bring up something publicly.
7. 4. Quiz on Sallust, Catilinae Coniuratio 51.16-36
This quiz is to be submitted like a HARD COPY assignment. Prepare your responses using a wordprocessing application, and print them for submission on Tuesday, 16 October. You may use a dictionary and a reference grammar, but you may not consult a translation of the text. No need to copy the question, but be sure to number your responses to correspond with the number of the question.
(NB In the questions I use standard references to the text.)
1. Explain how the accusative Silanum (51.16) is used in this sentence.
2. Explain how the infinitive decernere (51.19) is used.
3. What is the case of diligentia (51.19)?
4. Write a clear English equivalent for qui convenit in minore negotio legem timere, quom eam in maiore neglegeris (51.24).
5. Identify decretum erit (51.25) by tense and voice.
6. Explain why the subjunctive statuatis (51.26) is used.
7. Identify the case of Atheniensibus (51.28) and explain the use of that case in this sentence.
8. Explain the use of the subjunctive tractarent (51.29).
9. What does gravis (51.32) modify?
10. What is the syntactic function of vas (51.33), i.e. is it a subject? direct object? object of a preposition? etc.?
11. Give the reference in NLG that addresses the use of the subjunctive clause uti is in proscriptorum numero esset (51.33). (NB The section number and subdivision or note, if applicable, is a sufficient answer.)
12. You want to explain to an inexperienced reader of Latin how quibus and laetitiae at 51.34 are used. Write a concise explanation here. (NB You may find it useful to consult NLG for guidance.)
8. Week VIII 10.15 - 10.19
Lindsey- Hey guys, I found this pretty cool Latin website from Saint Louis University: http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/tchmat.html
It has visual/video learning tools, for some Readings it breaks down the syntax in a few different ways. Just thought I'd share my find!Colleen - Thanks, Lindsey! I might be on that site a lot during the break.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Hey thanks Lindsey, I checked it out, some pretty good stuff!
8. 1. REX 7.1, paragraph nos. 13-14 (pp. 39-40) (for 16 October)
Emily - let me say first: YAY for Caesar! Reading from de bello Gallico brings back fond memories of last semester in Intermediate. Secondly, I was a little confused by eorum hominum. Does that mean "of these men"? I am pretty sure they are genitives. And does equitum mean something like the English "cavalry"? That's what I translated it as...
Lindsey- Emily, I agrea with you about Caesar! I have similar translations for eorum hominum as genative "of those men," and I found equitum as "cavalry" also, with an understanding of aka "knights."
-In 13, I'm not sure how to construct nam fere de omnibis controversiis publicis privatisque constituunt. I read de...privatis as ablatives, all describing controversiis, and fere as nearly or almost. I have it translated as "for they establish nearly concerning all public and private controversies," which is very awkward. I want it to say "they establish nearly eveything concerning ..." but I couldn't find anything in my dictionary or in A+G about constituo taking an ablative.
Emily - Lindsey, in part 13, I translated constituunt as "they decide," and I agree that publicis privatisque are modifying controversiis. I translated it as something like, "for they decided nearly all controversies public and private" or to be more English about it, "they decided nearly all public and private controversies." Or something like that...I think the ablative is because it is with de, which is a prep. that takes the ablative. So literally, "they decided about all controversies public and private." Wow, that was a lot about one phrase...
Excellent discussion. We might translate "they make decisions about ...", or as Emily suggests, "they decide all controversies...." BTW, I would take fere to mean "as a rule, i.e in general".
Lindsey- Thank you both, those translations make sense and they don't stray from the Latin! I can't find a translation for velint in 14, in the sentence quod neque in vulgam disciplinam efferru velint. I found velo, velare, velavi, velatus, "to wrap, to hide" but I can't explain the i stem. Is the av droping out from the perfect stem? -N/M I found volo,velle "to wish" and am going with that.
Lindsey- Yay, I am done! I thought translating this wasn't difficult. Most of the sentences were pretty straight forward. I liked that this passage was almost praising the Gauls, when most of the references to them that I've seen were either negative or at best neutral.
Emily - I am finished too, and I really do enjoy Caesar's de bello Gallico as well. I like his description of the druids. It's so fascinating to think about two totally different cultures and how they interacted and regarded one another. It does seem like Caesar has respect for them, or at least a curiosity about them. His mind and his Latin are very analytical. I am sorry I won't be in class on Tuesday to discuss the passages!
Kyle - As soon as I started reading, I noticed that this is a passage that I did with Dr. Clark two years ago. I didn't have a whole lot of trouble with the Latin, and I gained a better appreciation for what the Latin actually says. I amazes me that the druids had so much power. They presided over all things religious and were pretty much above the law in every way. I can't really think of anybody in our culture that has such power.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I definitely agree about the direct language Caesar uses in both passages. I think its really interesting, Caesar in this document seems to not only record what he sees, but also admire their traditions; however I thought that the Romans felt above the Druids and treated them like savages; I dont sense that tone at all in these passages.
9. Week IX 10.22 - 10.26
9. 1. REX 7.1, paragraph nos. 16, 17, 18, and 21 (pp. 40-41) (for 23 October)
Kyle - In 17.6, I'm having some trouble. I don't know how multis in civitatibus and harum rerum function in the sentence. I know what the words mean, but that not how I should be approaching the sentence.
multis in civitatibus gives adverbial information about conspicari licet. Take harum rerum with tumulos; then rerum refers to reliquas res in the preceding line.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I was wondering about "quique" in line 3 No.16; at first I thought that it might be a form of quisque, but the longer I gave it some thought I think that "que" is simply a conjunction here to "qui." Is this conjunction actually that simple this time??
The quique you're talking about is indeed qui plus the enclitic conjunction -que.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I'm a little confused with passage 17 line 2-4, because "ferunt" I understand as they bring/bear/carry which doesnt fit the meaning that Mercury is the inventor of all skills, and I'm pretty sure that all the clauses depend on arbitrantur as the main verb. So I'm confused how to translate "ferunt" I looked it up and down the list it gave the translation " they say that" I'm going with that but its not smooth.
Kyle - I'm pretty sure you're right, Kathryn-Alizabeth. Ferre can often be used as a verb of speaking. I've seen it a lot before, so I would be unsurprised if Caesar was using it here.
Emily - In the first line of paragraph 18, I'm a little confused by ab Dite patre prognatos praedicant. Does that mean, "they say that they are children of..."? And is patre, along with Dite, the object of ab?
Your translation is fine; prognatos = "born, sprung from" and so with the preposition ab. And patre is in apposition with Dite - "from Dis (aka Pluto) their father."
Linz- In the last line of 21, I'm having trouble fitting in magna corporis parte nuda. I understand that they're mostly naked. Are magna parte nuda all ablatives, parte being a direct object of utuntur? If so, I can't find a translation of utuntur that would work.
The ablative complements with utuntur are pellibus and tegimentis. magna corporis parte nuda is ablative absolute.
9. 2. REX 7.1, paragraph nos. 22, 24, 25, and 26 (pp. 41-42) (for 25 October)
Emily - In 6.22, in line 11, I am having a little difficulty in figuring out what to do with qua in both clauses...I really am lost as to what they are doing...
ne qua ... cupiditas - After si, nisi, num, and ne, all the ali's drop away. So qua stands for aliqua, an indefinite adjective modifying cupiditas.
qua ex re - qua is a relative adjective modifying re. Another interesting point here is that ex conveys a causal idea; so "because of which thing". The notion of cause arises from one of source - "from which thing factions and dissent arise." This short phrase is a nice study in the fine lines that separate source from cause from result. Cause is a metaphorical transposition of source. As for the relationship between cause and result, we observe that the difference is simply point of view. What is cause from one point of view is result from another. Because of (i.e. arising from / as a result of) Latin's affinity for precisely graphable relations in the concrete world, the sometimes subtle distinctions between categories of thought may be more clearly discerned.
Emily - I am having a little trouble with the last part of 6.25, with videantur prodenda memoriae. I understand the general meaning of the phrase and I am pretty sure that prodenda implies neccessity (gerundive of obligation...?), but I am having trouble coming up with a sensible English equivalent.
Part of the problem is solved if we are familiar with the expression aliquid memoriae prodere = "to commit something to writing." Caesar is preparing his catalogue of species in the German forests "that seem especially (maxime) worthy to be committed to writing (memoriae - i.e. what is written down is remembered)."
Kyle - I don't understand the use of all the subjunctives in 6.22 at around lines 7 and 8. I know they must be triggered by ne, but I don't know what purpose they serve.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- so from my understanding, the 'ne' acts as a conjunction "lest/that not" and thus "commutent" is subjunctive so it all adds up to a purpose clause; lest they should...they... type construction. hope that helps. I'm very confused about potentiores line 9, I think that its comparative, of some form of 'possum'???
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I'm just curious because after a good while staring and using the handy dictionary I have realized that Volcae Tectosages (24 line 6) is the subject and is just cluttered with subordinate clauses, why caesar??why not just put the subject up at the front?reminds me of German, but I dont understand how putting the subject in an inconspicuous location in the sentence makes it "better." i guess what i'm asking is what is the literary function?
interesting question. We could say at least that the ea . loca, the direct object idea up front, emphasizes the region, an emphasis that is sustained by two more subordinate clauses (quam Eratostheni ... and quam illi ...; however, all this postponement of subject information amounts to an emphasis on it when it does appear. Also recall that Minkova points out that if you want to emphasis a subject, pull it out of its expected position.
The Volcae were a people of Gallia Narbonensis (cf. the map of Gaul circa 58 BC
). Kathryn-Alizabeth- yet again, I was wondering had anyone in line 7 No 24 found a translation for 'consederunt' ??I just took sedeo, sedere (to be settled) and then thought that it might mean maybe, to be settled together??
ibi consederunt = "they settled there."
10. Week X 10.29 - 11.02
10. 1. REX 7.1, paragraph nos. 27 and 28 (pp. 42-43) (for 30 October)
Emily - I am having trouble finding a definition for consuerint in 6.27, line 9...
Try looking under consuesco.
Kyle - I don't understand how the quo clause in line 9 is working. If it's just a relative clause, then why is consuerint subjunctive?
Emily - Kyle, I was confused about quo as well from that line, thinking that it was some sort of relative pronoun in a clause, but then I just threw that thought out and took it for its adverbial definition, "where," so the phrase translates something like "where they are accustomed to take refuge." As to why consuerint is subjunctive...I am thinking that the whole clause stands as a substantive clause serving as the direct object of est adminadversum. In answering the question, what did they perceive? They perceived where they were accustomed to take refuge...but I admit, that is my reasoning, and I am probably totally wrong...
good question by Kyle, good answer by Emily. quo here is the interrogative = "whither" (i.e. to what place). It introduces an indirect question (which is why consuerint is subjunctive) functioning as subject of est animadversum.
Kyle - Is quae sint testimonio (6.28) a relative purpose clause? Is it something like "with the horns, which were for evidence, having been brought out into public?"
yes, relative cause of purpose.
Lindsey- What is the subject of est animadversum in line 8, 27? I understand that it is refering to the place where the elk sleep, from context, but I can't find that in the Latin. Is it meant to be just understood? I also don't know what to do with omnes eo loco, line 9.
Subject of est animadversum is actually the indirect question quo se recipere consuerint
omnes modifies arbores in the next line. eo loco is just locative = "in that place".
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I haven't been able to find a definition for 'stantium' No 27 line 11, the -ium makes me think that its maybe genitive but Im lost about its meaning! Another question, both of these passages beginning with "sunt item" in no 27 and "tertium est genus eorum..." no28 Im guessing that the antecedent is animals,and not the ox, that instead of saying "those guys" it would be animals in this case, or is it just assumed the reader knows?.
Your intuition about gentium brings you close to the answer. This is genitive plural of the present participle, modifying earum, of sto, stare.
At 27 Sunt item can be understood to refer the the creatures, ferae from section 25, in these forests. At 28, Tertium est genus eorum, eorum is neuter genitive plural and refers to the genera of creatures Caesar is interested in cataloguing.
10. 2. REX 7.2, Latin composition (p. 43) (for 30 October)
Colleen's Composition
Emily's Composition
Kathryn Alizabeth's Composition
Kyle's Composition
Linz's Composition
10. 3. REX 8.1, paragraphs nos. 19 (not numbered) and 20 (pp. 49-50) (for 1 November)
Emily - Cicero really has me confused...really...first of all, ut ii fuerunt modo quos nominavi in line 4 has me puzzled. I am thinking that ut just means "as" in this context because the verbs are indicative...and ii is the subject, but I'm scratching my head over modo qous. Does it translate "as they were only those I have called (named)"? And I'm not quite sure what to make of ducem in line 7. I am thinking it is from dux, ducis, or am I wrong? I am also confused about amicitia and propinquitati in line 12. I can't figure out if amicitia is nominative (being the subject) or ablative (like ablative of means or something...). And I have no clue about propinquitati...that whole last sentence that starts off with Namque is driving me insane...
Emily, you are clearly in love with Latin. Only a lover could have such spats. Let me see if I can mediate.
You're right about ut meaning "as." modo here means "just now." ut il fuerunt modo quos nominavi = "as those were whom I just now named."
ducem (line 7) is indeed from dux. Here it in apposition with naturam; so quia sequantur ... ducem = "because they follow the best nature as leader of living well."
amicitia is nominative, subject of praestat. hoc is either accusative (as inner object) with praestat, or ablative of respect. propinquitati is dative with the compound praestat. Also, quod ... potest is a nice example of an explanatory quod-clause, explaining hoc.
Lindsey- Wow, Emily, that was a lot! Luckily for me, you adresseed many of the same issues I was having. Translating very linearly, the second sentence from Qui to ducem is a huge run-on sentence, of which I can make little sense. In the clause ut habiti sunt, is habiti an adjective meaning "in good condition," or perfect passive "they are being held"? In the third sentence, in the last bit maior autem ut quisque proxime accederet, is the subject societas again?
Kyle - I think that habiti sunt was the verb of that ut clause.
Yes, habiti sunt is the verb of that clause. The thought is almost parenthetic. Cicero means "as they were (in fact) held, i.e. considered." The Qui ita se gerunt clause that begins this long sentence is adjectival with viros (line 5). The main verb is putemus, on which an indirect statement with subject viros and verb appellandos 0=esse depends.
Lindsay's question about maior ... accederet is a good one. maior, the comparative adjective, substitutes for quaedam and still modifies societas ("a certain bond, greater moreover as each person comes closer."). The subject of this ut-clause is quisque. Note this use of ut quis (with a superlative) = in proportion as, the more ... the more.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- So I'm trying to think about this linearly but its not going so well.Something about friendship being like birth??? I wasn't able to find a translation for peperit in line 9, does it maybe mean, "turn into" ?
Lindsey- peperit is from the verb pario meaning bring forth, birth
11. Week XI 11.05 - 11.09
11. 1. REX 8.1, paragraph nos. 20-23 (pp. 50-51) (for 6 November)
Emily - First of all, I found these paragraphs to be much more straightforward for some reason. I do have a few questions, though. In section 22, I'm a little confused about illis down in the sixth line and illas in the seventh. Pronouns always confuse me, whether they are relative or demonstrative...I don't know why, they just do. In section 23, I am thinking that Cumque means "and while" because contineat is subjunctive, but what exactly is tum doing? And another pronoun, illa! That's all I have for now, but like I said, this seemed much less confusing that those initial paragraphs...
illis (section 22, line 6) is ablative with gauderet.
illas (section 22, line 7) is of course feminine accusative plural, direct object of ferret (line 8). illas refers to adversas at the beginning of line 7; moreover, with adversas we must understand res = adverse circumstances.
Cumque (section 23) may be understood as "and while," but it may also be taken as correlative with tum = "not only .. but also ... (see NLG 323. g). illa is feminine nominative singular, referring to amicitia.
Kyle - I can't find what utare means in line 22.10.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- kyle, I found that 'utare' is another form of 'utaris' the present passive, 2nd person singular subjunctive.
Emily - I wondered about utare too, I'm glad you found what exactly it was, Kathryn-Alizabeth!
Lindsey- I swear, 90% of the time I try to post, someone ellse does just before me and I have to do the whole copy-paste thing! I had trouble with utare as well. Since it's in a string of passive/subjunctive infinitives (colare, laudere) I figured it was a form of utor, and translated it as "riches, that you may use." In 23, I couldn't find a definition for exemeris, or even what it's coming from. I think it's a verb, though.
Lindsey, by "passive/subjunctive infinitives" you must mean that these creatures in the middle of section 22 resemble infinitives. You're right to observe a whole string of similar forms: utare, colare, laudere, gaudeas, careas, and fungare are all present subjunctives, and they all function as verbs in purpose clauses.
Section 23 - exemeris is future perfect active indicative 2s, from eximo = "to take away."
11. 2. REX 13.1, paragraph no. 22 (p. 85) (for 8 November)
Emily - I am having trouble understanding the meaning of cum in line 6. To be just a preposition meaning "with," it would have an ablative object, which is not the case here...so...I am thinking maybe I should just translate it as "when," but...I don't know why I'm so unsure about it all. The whole portion from quod to videretur in lines 6 and 7 has me confused...
line 6 - quod propter studium - quod is a conjunctive relative adjective modifying studium = "because of this dedication."
cum is conjunction here = "When (or "because") he seemed to neglect ..."
Kyle - From what verb does meminerunt(l. 2) come?
Lindsey- Kyle, I found memini, meminisse, "to remember"
Emily - I am having trouble with recitasse and quaesisse in line 12. I am thinking they are some type of infinitive (verb)...but...
Infinitives they are, called syncopated by specialists. recitasse = recitavisse. quaesisse = quaesivisse.
Kathryn-Alizabeth: In line 12 "quaesisseque" is quaesisse an infinitive from quaeso, but keeps the same meaning as "quaero?" and "iudicibus" is the meaning from iudex, iudicis- judge? Because I dont see how 'judge' fits in with the 'poem' he's talking about. the work is being judged?
quaesisse is perfect active infinitive of quaero, used here as a verb of asking.
iudicibus, dative with recitasse, is from iudex. The reference is to the jurors of the court. Sophocles has been summoned to court by his sons for neglecting family business (or property). He reads a play he wrote recently (or part of it) to the jurors to demonstrate that he is compos mentis.
Emily - I was wondering about the general meaning of the paragraph; I thought it odd to have sons dragging their father into court (doesn't sound very nice, to me), but I guess it makes sense...at least the Latin is seeming to make sense!
12. Week XII 11.12 - 11.16
12. 1. REX 13.1, paragraphs nos. 23-24 (p. 86) (for 13 November)
Kyle - Is age, the first word in 24, an imperative, or is it some other form?
Emily - Kyle, I found that age can be an expression for "come on," or, if using it as an assent, it can mean "okay" or "very well"...hrmmm...
Emily - I am having trouble with the last line in section 24. There are two main things bothering me. First of all, I'm not quite sure how to translate in eis because I'm not sure what it is referring to...is it referring to the people or to their actions from the previous sentence? And quae through pertinere is giving me a little trouble. Is nihil the subject of the indirect statement with pertinere, behind sciunt, or does it have some other syntactic function...? I am having some difficulty making sensible English..."which they know that nothing entirely pertains to themselves"...?
eis is neuter and is explained by the relative clause that follows. The trick is to see that quae is subject of the indirect statement that depends on sciunt. When a relative pronoun is subject of an infinitive, English must omit the word "that." Finally, nihil is just a strong negative further intensified by omnino = "not at all." So we could translate the sentence like this: "But the same people toil in those things which they know will affect them not at all."
Lindsey- I had the same trouble with age, so thanks. I am also having trouble with the same bit as Emily. Aside from the points she mentioned, what is idem doing in this sentence? See my comment on Emily's question above.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- i was wondering if in 24 line 3 "numquam fere" is a negative construction which makes the meaning, i found "scarcely, hardly"??
Emily - Kathryn-Alizabeth, I translated numquam fere as "hardly ever."
12. 2. REX 13.3, paragraph no. 27 (pp. 86-87) (for 13 November)
Emily - What precisely does isti mean in the sentence Non vero tam isti quam tu ipse at the top of pg. 87? My dictionary gave several translations, such as "this, that, of that kind," so I'm a little confused. I am also confused about that same sentence. There is no verb, so am I supposed to supply one...?
isti is demonstrative, often with contemptuous force, and refers to lacertos. In this clause we need to supply sunt. The speaker Cato is reproaching the old athlete Milo, saying that his muscles aren't as dead as he himself is.
Some prosopographical notes on paragraph 27
- Milo Crotoniates (Milo of Crotona, a Greek colony in southern Italy) was a wrestler who won six times at the Olympian Games and six times at the Pythian Games.
- Sextus Aelius was consul in 198 BC and author of an important legal text.
- Titus Coruncanius was consul in 280 BC, defeated the Etruscans, was the first plebeian pontifex maximus, and an early jurist.
- Publius Crassus Dives was consul in 205 BC, as well as pontifex maximus and censor.
12. 3. REX 13.3, para. 28 (p. 87) (for 15 November)
Emily - I am having some trouble with canorum illud in the third line of the paragraph. I know that canorum is genitive pl. of canor which means "tune" or "sound," but I'm not quite sure what to do with illud. Does it mean "that (thing) of sounds"...? That doesn't make much sense to me...
Lindsey- Emily, I found canorus/a/um the adjective, meaning musical, describing illud. I think it refers to the service of the orator. I'm having trouble with factique...mitis oratio, the last bit in the third sentence. Am I reapplying the verb est? Even if that's the case, oratio and facti are both nominative, aren't they? And audientiam is accusative, so I can't form a subject-is-subject type set up. I have these little pieces of nouns and their adjectives, but I don't know how they go together.
Emily - Lindsey, I found that audientiam facere means "to command attention" or "to command silence." There is no facti, just the 3rd person sing. facit with -que.
Lindsey is right about canorum being an adjective with illud, which in turn refers to munus. Emily's comments about audientiam facere and facit are also right. Nice example of teamwork on the problems in this sentence.
Kyle - What does amisi (28.4) modify?
Emily - Kyle, I took amisi to be the 1st person sing. perfect of amitto, i.e. the third principle part of the verb, amitto amittere amisi amissus.
Kyle - You're right; I'm so stupid.
12. 4. REX 13.5, para. 29 (p. 88) (for 15 November)
Kathryn-Alizabeth- in the fourth line, after the name references, is avi really the dative of 'birds'?? I wasn't able to find anything else in the dictionary that had the same form.Lindsey- Kathryn-Alizabeth, I found avus, avi, grandfather. Right!
13. Week XIII 11.26 - 11.30
13. 1. REX 13.5, para. 32 (p. 88) (for 27 November)
Emily - I am having trouble with the proverb toward the end of the paragraph, mature fieri senem, si diu velis senex esse. I understand the first part to mean "to become (or be made) old at an early age..." but I can't make sense of the last part. I am not sure what si is doing there, or where velis comes from. Does it come from velum, -i which means "veil"?
si begins the protasis of a conditional sentence. velis is present subjunctive of volo, velle.
Kyle - I have a further question about para. 29. What does saepius come from? I'm sure it's a comparative adverb, but I just realized that it doesn't come from the word I thought it did.
saepe!
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Hello all, just wondering is the 'vos' in line 7, is that acting reflexively?? Also, in line 10 I had some trouble with "veteri" I thought that it might be coming from veto vetare??I thought it might be a passiver infinitive however that would be "vetari" so now I'm confused as to what 'veteri' is, anyone able to find a meaning??
vos at line 7 is nominative, used emphatically. veteri (line 10) is dative singular of vetus.
13. 2. REX 15.1 (for 29 November)
Kyle - I'm having significant trouble with the first sentence. I think it's because of all the proper names. I'm confused as to the meanings and functions of Hesperius, Fussalensi, and Zubedi. I also couldn't find a translation for tribunitius.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I couldnt find it either Kyle, however I did find "tribunicius,-a,-um" and wasnt sure if maybe the 'c' switches out with the 't' I'm sure its not, but I took it as the adjective modifying "vir"- a tribunicial man, but I'm having doubts...couldnt it also modify Hesperius? I had some trouble making sense of it. "Hesperius, a tribunicial man,...." ?
tribunitius = tribunicius, having to do with a tribune. The meaning here is that someone in Hesperius' family had held the office of tribune.
Kathryn-Alizabeth-I wasn't able to find a translation for "allatam" in line 9, the dictionary gave the root all- and said to see -adl, but there nothing listed matched the form "allatam" anyone have any luck?also when i looked up presbyteros in line 5 I wasn't able to find it; however, I think that this is actually a Greek form for priest/bishop, right? I'm having a harder time finding definitions in this passage.
presbyteros - Right, Kathryn-Alizabeth. The word comes from the Greek and passes into Latin ecclesiastical usage. This is the etymological source of "priest." "Bishop" is a satisfactory translation.
Emily - Kyle, I think Fussalensi and Zubedi are names of places, maybe...I was having trouble with the first sentence too. Kathryn-Alizabeth, I found allatus -a -um in my dictionary. It is the perfect passive participle of affero, which means "to bring, to carry." I translated it as "having been brought" modifying terram.
Right, Emily. Fuassalensis = in the Fussalian district. Zubedi is the name of Hesperius' farm.
Lindsey- I'm having trouble in the beginning of the pasage, ubi cum adflictiones....conperisset. I don't know how all the genitives work in the sentence, animalium, servorum, domum, and I can't find a translation for adflictiones.
Notice the text you cite is ubi cum afflictione (ablative). The genitives animalium and servorum give information about adflectione. domum is accusative.
14. Week XIV 12.03 - 12.07
Emily - I don't think I understand the assignment for 15.2. I am really confused about the directions they give. Am I supposed to use all the sentences, a-h, and modify them? Some of the sentences don't seem true to the story from 15.1. Or am I supposed to choose the sentences that sum up the story...? I really don't understand what I'm being asked to do.
Fair question and an important one. The idea is to make each of the statements a. through h. dependent on an appropriate expression, with the choices being contigit ut, accidit ut, evenit ut, and opportune factum est quod. (all in the perfect tense, therefore setting up secondary sequence). In other words, the original statements a. through h. are to be rewritten as substantive clauses of result. Of the four expressions on which the result clauses will depend, only opportune factum est quod requires the indicative mood; the other three require the subjunctive.
We also need to note what is meant by 'Contingunt bona; accidunt mala; eveniunt utraque.' If the substantive clause of result is a good thing, we use in our revision contigit ut. If it's bad, we use accidit ut. We may use evenit ut for a good or a bad result. Finally, opportune factum est is used for a good result.
So for each of the revisions, you will need to make two decisions: first, whether the result is good or bad; second, what tense of the subjunctive or indicative is appropriate in the substantive clause of result.
For example, a. is something bad. So we write accidit ut spiritus maligni fundum Hesperii vexarent. "It happened that malevolent spirits were troubling Hesperius' farm."
By the way, I think all the statements are consistent with the narrative we read at 15.1.
Does all this help?
Emily - It is very clear now, thanks! I tend to over analyze these exercises sometimes. The only statement from 15.2 I didn't agree with was c. I didn't think the sacred earth from Jerusalem caused the evil spirits to leave, I thought it was the sacrifice and prayers that did it. Oh well, maybe I was reading too much into it. That's in part why I was so confused. Now, however, I am not.
Lindsey- Thanki you, Dr. Clark and Emily! This assignment is much easier with that explanation. when I first looked at it, I was pretty confused. Now I'm working through it pretty well.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Great! Thanks so much, I was about to have a mental breakdown when I read the directions because it hardly made sense, thanks for clearing up the confusion!
14. 1. REX 17.1, para. 38, 39, and 42 (pp. 113-114) (for 4 December)
14. 1. 1. para. 38
Emily - I can't quite figure out what incertum modifies. It is accusative, right..?
Emily's question calls attention to one of the difficulties in Tacitus' stye: it is extremely compressed. incertum is nominative; we must supply est; and incertum is subject complement in a clause that has a double indirect question as subject. A statement with all of the elements present that must be understood from the context would look something like this: utrum forte an dolo principis (haec clades sequatur) incertum est.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- just to make sure that I'm on track, prodidere in line 2 thats really prodiderunt? However utrumque doesnt modify authors, so are the antecedents of 'utrumque' forte and dolo?
Or is there an understood noun that I missed?
prodidere = prodiderunt. utrumque is its direct object and refers to the alternative reports in the indirect question in the previous clause.
14. 1. 2. para. 39
Emily - where to start, where to start...? I guess at the beginning...I really don't understand the first sentence at all, I don't even know what the subject is. Is it Nero, and if so, what is Anti? Does that simply mean "Nero of Antus" or something like that..? I know that agens is an adjective meaning powerful in the nominative case, so I am thinking it modifies Nero, but the whole non ante...quam has me perplexed. Are ante and quam separate, or has he just split up antequam? And if quam is by itself, is it an adverb or a relative pronoun...?
Nero is subject of the first sentence.
Anti is locative of Antium.
agens is present participle of ago, used here intransitively in the sense of spending time, i.e. living, staying (in Antium).
non negates regressus est.
ante ... quam is the subordinate conjunction split in two. "Nero didn't go back into town before (i.e. until) the fire was drawing near to his home...."
Emily - Am I missing something in the sentence that starts off Sed solacium and runs down through acciperent...? I know that solacium is either nominative or accusative, meaning "comfort" or "relief," but it seems like there is some verb missing that connects the whole phrase to hortos, which I am confused about. Is hortos the plural accusative of hortus -i which means "garden"? I don't see what else that word could be, but I don't see any verb for it to be the direct object of, unless it is in apposition to monumenta Agrippae, perhaps. Is he just further specifying that the monuments of Agrippa were gardens...?
solacium is in apposition to three direct objects of patefecit: campum, monumenta, and hortos. quin etiam here is emphatic = "also even ...".
quae ... acciperent is relative clause of purpose.
Lindsey- In the fourth sentance of 39, quae... cadebant, I'm not sure how best to translate cadebant so that the sentence makes sense. It's from codo, cadere, "to happen," right? For inritum I could only find the adjective meaning "useless". Is it substantized? When I translate that bit, I get "those things, although popular, happened in uselessness" which allows for understamding, but not a clear translation.
cadere literally means "to fall." inritum is substantized here. popularia probably implies in this context "proceding from the state." The sense is that these measures were proving ineffectual (to calm the people).
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I'm confused about the form of "sisti" in line 3, I thought it might be from sisto, sistere, stiti , statum like an imperative, infinitive, or something but that doesnt seem right. Maybe the passive infinitive, I'm taking it as 'however it was not able to be halted...'?
Right! sisti is present passive infinitive. The subject of sisti potuit is the quin clause that follows.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I'm also wondering if in line 8 "subvectaque utensilia" is an ablative absolute, or if subvecta is missing its "sunt" I'm leaning more towards the latter but not sure about that!
We need to supply sunt with subvecta, just as you say.
14. 1. 3. para. 42
Domus Aurea
Emily - Down in the 5th and 6th lines, I am not sure if magistris and machinatoribus are ablative or dative, or what they are doing in the sentence, for that matter, even if they are ablative or dative. I am also confused about Severo and Celere. Are they people or place names?
Severus and Celer were Nero's chief engineers and planners. Severo could be dative or ablative, but Celere could only be ablative. The construction is ablative absolute.
Kyle - What is the quam doing in line 11?
proinde ... quam. Nero embellished his domus not with ordinary things (jewels, gold) but with things like lawns, ponds, etc.
NB In this paragraph Tacitus describes Nero's (in)famous Domus Aurea. For a good short history of this construction, see Domus Aurea
.14. 2. REX 17.1, para. 43 and 44 (pp. 114-115) (for 6 December)
Kyle - Hey guys, I won't be in class tomorrow. Sorry.
14. 2. 1. para. 43
Emily - I am having trouble finding a definition for dimensis in paragraph 43, the third line. Is it the perfect passive participle of demetior?
Lindsey- Emily, I found dimensis as meaning "measurements or dimensions." I think it's on Perseus. I can't find proticus, in the second sentence. I assume it is either an adj or pp going with Nero.
dimensis is perfect passive participle of dimentior. It has passive meaning here.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Is in line 3 "propitiata" substantized from propitio, -are? I wasnt able to find a similar form.
propitiata is perfect passive participle of propitiare, as you say. We have to understand est with it.
14. 2. 2. para. 44
Emily - In line 7, is celebravere just the alternative for the 3rd person plural perfect of celebro? I don't think there is an infinitive that is celebravere...
Precisely!
Emily - Oh, I just got to the part where Nero is blaming the Christians...this is lovely.
15. Week XV 12.10 - 12.12 (Preparation Week)
15. 1. REX 22.4 (for 11 December)
Emily - This is a fascinating read, really, but I am having some trouble with verb forms. I am a little confused as to why infinitives are used down in the 5th and 6th lines, facere and excessisse. Is this somehow indirect discourse or just historical infinitives? And if it is indirect discourse, what verb raised the expectation for it? Also, why is the subjunctive essent used at the end of that sentence? And in the next line, I am wondering about indignatos. I am thinking that it is the accusative masculine plural of the perfect passive participle, but I am confused about why it is accusative.
This entire excerpt is a study in indirect statement. It's Hannibal's speech to his army urging them not to falter in their aim to bring war to Rome's doorstep. versat animos castigando adhortandoque sets up Livy's report of what Hannibal said.
essent is the verb of a temporal (dependent) clause embedded within the indirect statement. The subordinating conjunction for this clause is split up in the preceding two lines, ante ... quam.
indignatos modifies an understood eos, subject of this infinitive cause. The clause quod ... postularet populus depends on Indignatos, and traiecisse is the next verb of the indirect statement.
Emily - In the second-to-last line, is the whole prepositional phrase per eos dies or is dies separate?
per eos dies is one prepositional phrase. Another good question would be: What does this phrase modify?
Kathryn-Alizabeth- I was wondering about, what seems to me to be plural masculine accusative, "fatigatos" line 18, I was not able to find an actual noun form, so I thought that it might be a substantized form of fatigo,-are. Is that right?
Kyle - I think that's just a perfect, passive participle that modifies an implied eos.
Kathryn-Alizabeth- Thanks, I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a noun, good to know. Ok, another point/ slash question I have is in line 12- is this syllepsis? so that the ab occasu solis means the West, and the solis is also used with ad exortus to mean the East.
I wouldn't call this an example of syllepsis, since ab occasu and ad exortus belong in the same field of meaning, i.e. directions. True syllepsis
is the use of a single word in such a way that it is syntactically related to two or more words elsewhere in the sentence, but has a different meaning in relation to each of the other words.