Bina tantum spolia opima...

[pmda]

In Orberg's LLPSI exercitium 11.6 habet:

Bina tantum spolia opima capta sunt: adeo rara fuit fortuna eius decoris adipiscendi [= id decus adipiscendi].

I think this means: The spolia opima were captured only twice: such was the rare fortune of this [eius?] honour of seizure.

I can't translate this into English very well. But, assuming my understanding is accurate my question is this: is 'eius' there for emphasis? If the word were not there would the meaning be different?

[Damoetas]

"... so rare was the fortune [of seizing this honor]."

[Calgacus]

"... so rare was the fortune [of seizing this honor]."

I might add that the way that phrase is formed (eius decoris adipiscendi) is idiomatic to Latin, since it effectively means "of this-honour-seizing", with the object of the gerund "seizing" attracted into the case of the gerund itself (which is actually a gerundive, technically). So instead of adipiscendi id decus, which would make grammatical sense in English, you have "this honour" becoming genitive here.

In the books I learned from this odd feature of Latin grammar was called "gerundive attraction", but it might have a different name in other primers.

[GJCaesar]

"... so rare was the fortune [of seizing this honor]."

I might add that the way that phrase is formed (eius decoris adipiscendi) is idiomatic to Latin, since it effectively means "of this-honour-seizing", with the object of the gerund "seizing" attracted into the case of the gerund itself (which is actually a gerundive, technically). So instead of adipiscendi id decus, which would make grammatical sense in English, you have "this honour" becoming genitive here.

In the books I learned from this odd feature of Latin grammar was called "gerundive attraction", but it might have a different name in other primers.

Fortuna goes with a genitive. Literally, it says: ''of this honor that must be seized''. The gerundive, however, becomes dominant, so it should be translated as: ''of the seizing of this honor''. You can compare it with the dominant participle in ''ab urbe condita'' as well. Literally, it says: ''since/from the founded city''. In this case, the participle becomes dominant, so it should be translated like "since/from the foundation of the city''.

This happens all the time in Latin, that's what makes it so beautiful!

I should note that your explanation is confusing to me, especially the ''object of the gerundive attracted into ...''. This is not the case, actually. eius decoris adipiscendi = objective genitive with fortuna. After that, one should interpret this case of the gerundive as a dominant one. In the translation, decoris becomes the object of adipiscendi, but in Latin, this is not the case!! This is just one of the many ways that modern scholars make Latin simple to understand. The same happens with the A.c.I-construction:

Dico eum epistulam scribere = I say that he writes a letter.

Literally, it says the following: I say him to write a letter.

You see the difference?

ps. Damoetas' translation was correct, but I thought an explanation would help you understand why he translates it this way.

[pmda]

Many thanks to you all. Much here to study.