Holmes on De Bello

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
BVD

Holmes on De Bello

Post by BVD »

Salvete, This is my first time posting for help here, so let me take just a moment to give some background. I have tought myself a little bit of latin by pushing through the Oxford series. Having completed those, I am now translating the first book of de Bello into English and then translating it back into latin to check myself.

Since I have not had any class instruction, I'm missing a lot of background knowledge, so I'm real glad to have found a site with knowledgable people willing to help out.

Now to my question. In section 31, Caeser writes:
propterea quod paucis mensibus ante Harudum milia hominum XXIIII ad eum venissent, quibus locus ac sedes pararentur.

I would like to translate pararentur as 'were being prepared', but context and Homes' commentary say it should be translated as 'had to be prepared'.

Would anyone care to fill me in as to why Caeser choose to use pararentur in this instance?

mraig
Textkit Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 6:24 am

Post by mraig »

From Colin Ewan's Bristol Classic edition:
quibus...pararentur. Perhaps purpose 'so that... could be... for them' or (better?) command in past time: 'for whom (let...be provided) they were ordered to provide...'
I think it works fine as a purpose clause myself. Allen & Greenough say:
529. The Subjuncitve in the clause of Purpose is hortatory in origin, coming through a kind of indirect discourse construction (for which see #592). Thus, misit legatos qui dicerent means he sent ambassadors who should say i.e. who were directed to say...
which suggests that there is not much of a distinction between a relative clause of purpose or a command in past time. The thing that makes this example from Caesar a little more complicated is that the verb is in the passive voice, and the relative pronoun is the indirect object, not subject of the verb.

BVD

Post by BVD »

You're right. Realative clause of purpose. <br> Plain as day now that you say it, but I guess because of the constuction I just didn't see it. Thanks.

Post Reply