Ecloga IV

[swtwentyman]

I'm thinking myself into circles with this one. Lines 8-10:

The birth of the divine child will bring forth a new golden age:

Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget gens aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina;

I'm pretty ignorant of the mythology at work here, by the way. "You, pure Lucina, show favor to the boy just now being born, by whom the iron-age race first will cease and the golden-age race will rise througout the whole world." This seems fairly right but it would require "gens" to do double-duty, which I guess isn't out of the question.

[Qimmik]

You got this right. gens does double duty with ferrea and aurea. This isn't uncommon in Latin poetry--it's one of the devices that the Roman poets use to achieve compression.

Lucina is a goddess who presides over child-birth.

The metallic ages are a commonplace of ancient mythical history, beginning with Hesiod. The ages start with gold and go downhill from there. Iron, of course, is the last--the current age; the child will return us to gold.

[swtwentyman]

On the subject of scansion going on in the other thread: when reading these lines I read them metrically as discrete entities, not thinking to link one with the other, but as I see it now "aurea" and "ferrea" occupy the same place in the line metrically, and they're both exactly one dactyl apiece. Just found that a bit interesting: I need to be looking out for stuff like that, since if I had noticed it may have made the section considerably easier. As it is I still have trouble taking words as they come: typically I'll read a sentence through metrically a few times, then look at it to work out anything that was giving me trouble, then reread it both for meter and for sense. I think I'm improving in this regard, but it's alien to all my reading habits.

I'm actually a bit pleased that I got this sentence right; I've gotten simpler passages wrong. Small victories.

[Qimmik]

"aurea" and "ferrea" occupy the same place in the line metrically, and they're both exactly one dactyl apiece.

Not by accident.

[swtwentyman]

Lines 24-25:

Occidet et serpens et fallax herba ueneni
occidet; Assyrium uolgo nascetur amomum.

"The serpent shall fall, and the deceiving poisonous herb shall fall; Assyrian balsam-plant will rise (in its place)." I can't figure out "uolgo" or find any place for it.

[Qimmik]

It's in the dictionary under vulgus. uolgo is an older spelling--Coleman's edition favors these. In the ablative, it means simply "everywhere."

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... isandshort

[swtwentyman]

Ah, sorry about that. I had taken it as a form of "volgus" and since I knew that word didn't bother to look it up and see there's the adverb "volgo", and "volgus" doesn't make much sense there. My mistake.

[swtwentyman]

Lines 31-33

The new golden age will slowly dissolve the sins of civilzation:

Pauca tamen suberunt priscae uestigia fraudis,
quae temptare Thetin ratibus, quae cingere muris
oppida, quae iubeant telluri infindere sulcos.

("Nevertheless, a few traces of the old transgressions will remain: what things tempt men to go to sea in rafts, what walls surround the towns, what things command men to plow ditches in the land.")

There are a few things I can't figure out here. First, why the infinitives? I take it "quae" is neuter accusative to go with them but I can't find any reason for indirect discourse. Second, why the datives? Is it because of the compound "subesse"? Actually I just had a thought: are the infinitives with "iubeant"? That still doesn't explain the datives though. Ablatives would make more sense -- "with/in rafts", "with walls", "in the land" -- except that I don't think "tellus" is an i-stem.

[Qimmik]

Yes, the infinitives are complements of iubeant. The subjects of iubeant are the multiple quae's, and the antecedent of each quae is uestigia. These are relative clauses "of characteristic"; hence subjunctive iubeant.

ratibus and muris are indeed ablatives. telluri is the dative complement of in-findere (dative complement of a compound verb).

sulcos -- "furrows", not ditches, here.

ratibus -- commonly means just "boats" or "ships" in poetry.

"a few vestiges . . . will remain, which will command [men] to tempt/attempt the sea with ships, to surround towns with walls, to plow furrows into the earth."

These are commonplaces of ancient poetry. Ships and seafaring are conventionally seen as a violation of nature characteristic of the degenerate age of man--seafaring was very dangerous in antiquity, and the Greeks and Romans had a horror of it and avoided it when they could. City walls were a product of warfare and ultimately greed, which were supposedly unknown to primitive man. In the golden age, the earth bore fruit without human intervention, or else people were happy to eat acorns; agriculture was a violation of Mother Earth.

When you've finished the Fourth Eclogue, you might try reading Ovid, Metamorphoses I 89-162, which describes the degeneracy of man through the four ages. It's self-contained and reads well as an excerpt. It echoes the Fourth Eclogue. There's also an ode (or epode?) of Horace, which I'll try to find. All of these passages recall the ages of man in Hesiod's Theogony.

[swtwentyman]

I'll check out that selection from the Metamorphoses. I've found a text but I don't own a printer at home so it'll have to wait until the weekend when I can get to the library. I've continued the fourth eclogue and have basically got to the end with a couple tricky spots:

Adgredere o magnos -- aderit iam tempus -- honores,
cara deum suboles, magnum Iouis incrementum.

("Advance -- the time will come -- to great honors, O dear offspring of God, mighty addition to Jupiter.")

I don't get the accusatives here. I would expect the vocative: either that or I have the meaning wrong.

Pan etiam, Arcadia mecum si iudice certet,
Pan etiam Arcadia dicat se iudice victum.

("Even Pan, if he were to enter into a contest with me in Arcadia, even Pan would say he was defeated in Arcadia.")

The "iudice"s are just kind of hanging out there and they don't seem to fit anywhere.

Qui non risere parenti,
nec deus hunc mensa dea nec dignata cubili est.

("They who do not smile upon a parent are worthy neither of a table nor a bed.")

Obviously this is giving me no end of trouble. "Risere" is third-person plural perfect so "qui" cannot go with "est", which would seem to go with "deus" or "dea" which I can find no place for in the sentence; also "dignata" doesn't work with the masculine "qui". And where does "hunc" fit in in a sentence with no accusatives? I've stared at this sentence for far too long and I'm just going to throw in the towel.

Ed: I just saw that the word is "dignata" and not "digna" -- "nor is a goddess considered worthy of her bed" -- but the first part of the line still doesn't make a great deal of sense. If "dignata" applies also to "deus" then we would have something like "they who do not smile upon a parent, a god is not considered worthy of his table nor a goddess her bed". That still leaves "hunc" but it's somewhat better, if garbled.

[Qimmik]

Pan etiam, Arcadia mecum si iudice certet,
Pan etiam Arcadia dicat se iudice victum.

Arcadia iudice is an ablative absolute: "with Arcadia [Pan's homeland] as judge"

"If even Pan should enter into a contest with me with Arcadia as umpire, even Pan with Arcadia as umpire would confess that he was defeated.

Adgredere o magnos -- aderit iam tempus -- honores,
cara deum suboles, magnum Iouis incrementum.

("Advance -- the time will come -- to great honors, O dear offspring of God, mighty addition to Jupiter.")

This is basically right.

deum is an alternative (particularly poetic) form of gen plur deorum.

magnos honores -- honores generally refers to the highest officials of the Roman republic, quaestor, aedilis, praetor, consul in order of ascending importance (I think). This was the cursus honorum; holding just one of these offices was the admission ticket to the Senate, but ambitious men sought to run through the entire cursus to the consulship.

Note the solemnity of the spondaic line: incrementum (you're scanning and reading metrically, aren't you?).

. . . Qui non risere parenti,
nec deus hunc mensa dea nec dignata cubili est.

Readers have been puzzling over these lines since Vergil's death 2034 years ago. I think Coleman will give you an idea of the various attempts to explain them--I'm not going to do so, except to note that (1) dignor is a deponent, "deem worthy," and (2) there's an alternative reading cui non risere parentes, which has more manuscript support and is syntactically easier, but seems odd in context and looks like an attempt to "correct" a difficult text.

dignata -- shared by god and goddess -- agrees with the closer divinity.

"a god does not deem this man worthy of his [dinner] table nor a goddess of her bed." This is a "gnomic" perfect.

Allen & Greenough sec. 475:

475. The Perfect is sometimes used of a general truth, especially with negatives (Gnomic Perfect):—

“quī studet contingere mētam multa tulit fēcitque ” (Hor. A. P. 412) , he who aims to reach the goal, first bears and does many things.
nōn aeris acervus et aurī dēdūxit corpore febrīs (id. Ep. 1.2.47), the pile of brass and gold removes not fever from the frame.

[*] Note.--The gnomic perfect strictly refers to past time; but its use implies that something which never did happen in any known case never does happen, and never will (cf. the English “Faint heart never won fair lady”); or, without a negative that what has once happened will always happen under similar circumstances.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001

One other small point in the previous verse: tulerunt scans as u u _. In classical Latin the 3r plur perf indicative ending has a long -e-, but the short -e- is an older form which crops up elsewhere in Vergil. Actually, there were originally two forms: -erunt with short -e- and -ere with long -e-. At some point the -e- of the -erunt form was lengthened under the influence of -ere, but the short -e- form was still in circulation in Vergil's day or else he adopted a poetically archaic form. Don't say he did it metri gratia, because he was perfectly capable of finding a way to express himself using the long -e- form if he had wanted to.

But I'm throwing in the towel, too, on the last two lines.

[swtwentyman]

Note the solemnity of the spondaic line: incrementum (you're scanning and reading metrically, aren't you?).

Yes. That line did trip me up and it took a few tries on paper but then I remembered about spondaic lines; I don't know their significance, though, except that it adds some weight to an otherwise "waltzing" last two feet.

I read through the whole poem today and tomorrow I'll see how I can do with the Tufts/Perseus selection from the Metamorphoses. The click-on-a-word-for-its-definition thing seems great -- when I glanced at the first two lines earlier I took "sata" to mean "standing corn, crops" but the gloss set me right. Unfortunately it doesn't indicate vowel length, and I'm not very good with reading off of screens (obviously the click-to-gloss is terrible for learning vocabulary). Still, I'll try to plod along a bit until I can get it printed out.

[swtwentyman]

Oh, and I think I've found something that might help with indirect questions. Recently there's been a trend, chiefly among politicians, of introducing an indirect question and then asking that question directly:

"We need to look at how do we keep America safe."
"We'll learn what are they doing."
Et cetera.

It's a barbarism, I hate it, and thankfully it doesn't seem to have spread into the general populace (yet, at least) but it may help just to get the idea into my head.

[Qimmik]

This is a somewhat cleaner site from which you can download and print the text (but without linked glosses):

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met1.shtml

[swtwentyman]

Lines 91-93 of Ovid:

Poena metusque aberant, nec verba minantia fixo
aere legebantur, nec supplex turba timebat
iudicis ora sui, sed erant sine vindice tuti.

("Punishment and fears were away/unknown, nor were threatening words chosen from the unmoving air, nor did the supplicant crowd fear their judge's mouth, but they were safe without a defender.")

I think I've basically got most of this except for "verba minantia fixo aere legebantur". The gloss provided for "minantia" said that a participle of "minare" ("to drive") was most likely but a participle of "minor" seems to make more sense to me. "Fixo aere" is also what's tripping me up -- I think I can feel a vivid "words plucked from the air" imagery but I'm not sure.

Also: "aere" scans as two syllables where it ought to be three. Am I reading this correctly?

[Qimmik]

aes, aeris, "bronze," not aer, "air". You picked up on the scansion, which is the clue here that this is aes, not aer.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... isandshort

The declension of this word is an example of "rhotacism": intervocalic s > r, a more or less pervasive phenomenon in Latin. Words such as honor, honoris were originally honos, honosis and the nominative, which was sometimes spelled honos even in classical times, changed to honor by analogy; not so with aes.

The idea is bronze tablets engraved (fixo, "set") with laws. ". . . threatening words were not read on engraved bronze," i.e., there was no need for laws--everyone acted justly and honorably.

minantia is from minor, to threaten.

[Qimmik]

By the way, many of the manuscripts--apparently a preponderance of those used by Tarrant in his Oxford edition (2004)--read ligabantur: "threatening words were not bound/ratified by bronze tablets", "threatening words were not made binding by bronze tablets."

Tarrant adopts ligabantur in his text, though Anderson (Teubner, 1982) and Heinsius (1652, 1659) accept legebantur. Legebantur is obviously the easier reading, which is probably why (in addition to the ms. authority) Tarrant goes with ligabantur, on the principle of difficilior lectio potior ("the more difficult reading is stronger").

It's more likely that the more difficult reading was replaced by an easier one than vice versa--provided that the more difficult reading isn't absolutely impossible. In the end, like all textual choices, it's a matter of judgment on the part of the editor.

[swtwentyman]

101-102:

Ipsa quoque inmunis rastroque intacta nec ullis
saucia vomeribus per se dabat omnia tellus.

I have an idea of what this is saying but I can't work out the syntax. Roughly "quoque ipsa tellus, intacta, nec saucia ullis vomeribus, dabat per se omnia". I'm thinking it's "intacta rastro", "rastro" being an ablative of separation; "inmunis" is nominative or accusative plural by the meter but I don't see its complement.

That's all I'm reading for today -- I have to go to work soon. The imagery of the oak dripping with honey and the "nautica pinus" in particular recall the eclogue.

[Qimmik]

immunis rastroque intacta -- both adjectives agree with tellus.

immunis: nominative singular. The syllable -nis is long "by position" -- two consonants: -niS Ras-.

"the earth herself, immune [from agriculture] and untouched by the rake and wounded by no ploughs by herself gave everything".

nondum caesa suis, peregrinum ut viseret orbem,
montibus in liquidas pinus descenderat undas,

These lines echo the beginning of Catullus 64:

Peliaco quondam prognatae uertice pinus
dicuntur liquidas Neptuni nasse per undas.

"Pine trees born on the peak of Mt. Pelion are said, once upon a time, to have swum through the clear/liquid waves of Neptune."

He's describing the voyage of the Argo, the first ship (which ties in with Ovid's negative reference to the origins of seafaring). Peleus, the father of Achilles, is on board among the Argonauts, and he sees, and is smitten with, the sea-nymph (or goddess) Thetis. The poem describes their wedding, but focuses at length on a wedding gift: an embroidered cloth illustrating the story of Ariadne, abandoned by Theseus on the island of Naxos. The image takes on a life of its own, including Ariadne's famous lament.

[swtwentyman]

121-122:

In the silver age:

Tum primum subiere domus (domus antra fuerunt
et densi frutices et vinctae cortice virgae).

("At that time men first went into houses (grottoes were their home, and both dense bushes and twigs bound with bark.)"

I can't make sense of that second line.

Line 114:

sub Iove mundus erat, subiit argentea proles,

The scansion has the second I in "subiit" as long. It's third-person singular perfect, right? Isn't that supposed to be short?

[Qimmik]

et densi frutices et vinctae cortice virgae

I think you have the translation right, except that "both" shouldn't be there: there are three items: caves (not necessarily grottoes here), bushes and twigs bound with bark. This is simply how Ovid imagined prehistoric people living. I'm not sure about whether this refers to the Silver Age or the Golden Age that preceded it. fuerunt is parallel with subiere and both are perfect; you would expect a pluperfect if he meant the Golden Age, but I think the idea is that in the Silver Age houses began to be constructed, instead of the more primitive living arrangements of the Golden Age.

subiit -- this is simply a metrical irregularity--they do occur. A short syllable is sometimes lengthened in the first part of the foot. This isn't very common, and usually it occurs before a pause, in particular before the main caesura. Some of the manuscripts read subiitque but this is an obvious attempt to "fix" the irregularity. Another rejected reading: subit hi[n]c.

Looks like you're beginning to master the meter, since you recognized this. But when you're having difficulty scanning a line, don't conclude there's a metrical irregularity except as a last resort. Usually, you'll find you've missed an elision or a syllable that is scanned long "by position," or some other regular phenomenon. You'll know you've really mastered the meter when you read a verse without even noticing an irregularity like this and everything falls into place.

[swtwentyman]

Hit a bit of a snag. 132-136:

Vela dabat ventis (nec adhuc bene noverat illos)
navita; quaeque diu steterant in montibus altis,
fluctibus ignotis insultavere carinae,
communemque prius ceu lumina solis et auras
cautus humum longo signavit limite mensor.

("The sailor was giving the sails to the winds (to this point he had not known them well); each of them had long stood in the high mountains. The keels sprung upon the unknown waves; the cautious measurer (navigator?) marked out the long path to the common (familiar?) ground just as before he had the sunlight and the winds.")

"Each of them had long stood in the high mountains" -- grammatically it would be "each of the sails" but that doesn't seem right. I think I have a general idea -- I'm thinking the last two lines are contrasting using celestial lights and winds at sea to using them with the more "golden-age-esque" travel on land -- but I have trouble with the syntax so that's not entirely clear.

[Qimmik]

. . . quaeque diu steterant in montibus altis,
fluctibus ignotis insultavere carinae,

quaeque is the relative pronoun quae + -que, not a feminine form of quisque. Its (grammatical) antecedent is carinae, which to be sure literally means "keel," but in poetry usually means "ship" by synecdoche.

". . . and ships, which had long stood in the high mountains [as trees, before being cut down to supply timber] jumped into waves [hitherto] unknown [to them]."

This picks up from--

nondum caesa suis, peregrinum ut viseret orbem,
montibus in liquidas pinus descenderat undas,

insulto means both "jump into" literally, and also, by extension, something like "insult," "affront." The suggestion is that human seafaring is an offence against the natural world, and belongs to a degenerate age. Ships are viewed from the perspective of those present at the birth of navigation as diving and swimming trees, capturing the strangeness of seafaring to the first men to attempt it. This goes back to Catullus' image in 64.

communemque prius ceu lumina solis et auras
cautus humum longo signavit limite mensor.

"And the wary surveyor marked out the earth, previously common [to all] like the light of the sun and the breezes, with a long boundary."

[swtwentyman]

Thanks; that makes sense. Looks like I was barking up the wrong tree with the last two lines but realistically it's a bit too difficult for me anyway.

[Qimmik]

Reading Latin poetry seem difficult at first because you not only have to work out the grammar and syntax, but also you have to get used to the ways in which the Roman poets express themselves and their repertory of common ideas that are often understood rather than expressed explicitly, their preconceptions. The only way to do this is to engage with Latin poetry, and it takes time. So bear with it and don't be discouraged.

[swtwentyman]

I meant the last two lines in particular. Usually when a hard sentence is translated it all seems so obvious but on occasion it seems just as tough as it did when I was struggling with it and I just have to wonder how anyone can get it naturally. This was one of those times.

In general, however, I'm pleased with my progress in poetry. It's not quite as alien as it was before, and I'm starting to be able to read it more fluently. Obviously I've got a ways to go, but I've got a ways to go with Latin in general.

Ed: I suppose I shouldn't say that some toug sentences are "just as" perplexing; I just mean that I can see how the words fit together but it's completely non-obvious.

[swtwentyman]

137-140:

Nec tantum segetes alimentaque debita dives
poscebatur humus, sed itum est in viscera terrae;
quasque recondiderat Stygiisque admoverat umbris,
effodiuntur opes, inritamenta malorum.

("It was not only the rich fields and due nourishment that the land was demanded, but there was a going/people went into the bowels of the earth; and riches, incitement to evil men, were dug up.")

Line 139 obviously is the sticking point. I want to say that "it moved them to re-found the Stygian shadows". I can't find an antecedent for "quas" except for "opes" -- perhaps "it had moved the riches to be dug up, and it had moved them to re-found the Stygian shadows" but that doesn't seem likely. I can't find a subject for either of the pluperfect verbs except for maybe "opes", which wouldn't work as the antecedent for "quas" in that case, so I'm assuming tthey're impersonal?

In the section on the giants, does "ferunt (infinitive)" mean "they were said to have (infinitive)" or something along those lines? Ed: it's an abrupt transition to the giants part and I'm having trouble following what's going on. As I read it roughly, the giants led a rebellion against the gods, were rebuffed violently, and, to make a memorial of their destruction, made man from their blood? You don't have to give away the actual text; I'm just not sure of the mythology. I'm going to have to revisit tnis part later: it's pretty tough.

[Qimmik]

Nec tantum segetes alimentaque debita diues
poscebatur humus, sed itum est in uiscera terrae;
quasque recondiderat Stygiisque admouerat umbris,
effodiuntur opes, inritamenta malorum.

Nec tantum segetes alimentaque debita dives
poscebatur humus

This is syntactically somewhat interesting. It's the passive of a double accusative construction, which occurs with this verb.

L&S posco:

With a double acc.: parentes pretium pro sepulturā liberum poscere, Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 3, § 7: magistratum nummos, id. ib. 2, 1, 17, § 44: aliquem causam disserendi, id. Tusc. 3, 3, 7: claves portarum magistratus, Liv. 27, 24, 8: non ita creditum Poscis Quintilium deos, Hor. C. 1, 24, 12: cur me in decursu lampada poscis? Pers. 6, 61: poscenti vos rationem, Vulg. 1 Pet. 3, 15.—Hence, pass.: poscor aliquid, I am asked for something, something is asked or demanded of me (poet. and in post-class. prose): gravidae posceris exta bovis, they ask you for the entrails, Ov. F. 4, 670; cf.: poscor meum Laelapa, they demand of me my Lœlaps, id. M. 7, 771: nec tantum segetes alimentaque debita dives Poscebatur humus, id. ib. 1, 138: quod rationem pecuniae posceretur, Gell. 4, 18, 12; to be called upon or invoked to inspire a poet or to sing: aversus Apollo Poscitur invitā verba pigenda lyrā, Prop. 4 (5), 1, 76 (better reading poscis ab); cf. absol. Palilia poscor: Non poscor frustra; si favet alma Pales, Ov. F. 4, 721; so, poscimur Aonides, Ov. M. 5, 333: poscimur, Hor. C. 1, 32, 1.—

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... isandshort

"Not only was the rich earth required [to produce] crops [here, the crops, not the fields] and [rightfully] owed food . . . ", "Not only were grain and rightfully owed food demanded of the rich earth . . ."

The passive of eo is impersonal, as you recognize. From somewhere Aeneid 6: itur in antiquam siluam.

quasque recondiderat Stygiisque admouerat umbris,
effodiuntur opes, inritamenta malorum.

Once again, a relative clause quas[que] recondiderat Stygiisque admoverat umbris, comes before its grammatical antecedent, opes.

But your problem here (and I don't mean to be a scold) is that you didn't look up recondo in the dictionary. It doesn't mean "re-found" -- it means "store away" or "hide away." Opes is plural and can't be the subject of the recondiderat and admouerat, as you recognize. The subject is humus.

"and the resources which it had hidden away and moved to the Stygian shades [a poetic expression for "the underworld"] were dug up--incitements to evil deeds."

I think malorum is probably neuter, not masculine, but I could be wrong.

Incidentally, "store away" is among the meanings of the base verb condo.

L&S:

II With the access. idea of carefulness, to put away, to lay, put, or place somewhere for preservation, etc.; to lay up, store or treasure up (opp. promo).

A In gen. 1 Prop. (a) Aliquid: pecuniam, Cic. Clu. 26, 72: frumentum, id. N. D. 2, 63, 157; Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 140: condere et reponere fructus, Cic. N. D. 2, 62, 156: agri multa efferunt, quae ... mandentur condita vetustati, id. ib. 2, 60, 151; cf. id. Brut. 4, 16; Varr. R. R. 1, 62; Auct. B. Afr. 65: vinum, Varr. R. R. 1, 13; cf. Mart. 13, 111, 2; Verg. E. 3, 43; Hor. Ep. 1, 1, 12: aliquid proprio horreo, id. C. 1, 1, 9: Sabinum testā levi, id. ib. 1, 20, 3: pressa mella puris amphoris, id. Epod. 2, 15: messem, Tib. 1, 1, 42: fruges, Paul. Sent. 2, 8, 2.— (b) With the designation of the place (most freq. by in and acc.): minas viginti in crumenam, Plaut. Truc. 3, 1, 9: mustum in dolium, Varr. R. R. 1, 65, 1: cineres in urnas, Suet. Calig. 15: barbam in auream pyxidem, id. Ner. 12; cf. id. ib. 47: legem in aerarium, id. ib. 28: libri in sacrarium conditi, Gell. 1, 19, 10; cf. the foll.: te in pistrinum, Plaut. Ps. 1, 5, 120; cf.: aliquem in custodiam, Liv. 31, 23, 9; Tac. H. 4, 2: aliquem in carcerem, to thrust into prison, imprison, Cic. Verr. 2, 5, 29, § 76; Liv. 26, 16, 6; 29, 22, 7; 30, 21, 5; 45, 42, 5: aliquem in vincula, id. 23, 38, 7; 26, 34, 4. —With adv.: argentum intro, Plaut. Ps. 1, 3, 120; id. Truc. 5, 28: sortes eo, Cic. Div. 2, 41, 86 Orell. N. cr.—With in and abl.: litteras publicas in aerario sanctiore, to keep, lay up, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 63, § 140: se (aves) in foliis, Verg. G. 4, 473: novissimo die dein (argyritin) condunt in plumbeo vase, Plin. 33, 6, 35, § 109.—With abl.: condidit (libros Sibyllinos) duobus forulis auratis sub Palatini Apollinis basi, Suet. Aug. 31; Scrib. Comp. 145.—With locat.: id domi nostrae, Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 2, § 5; cf.: ut ei jam exploratus et domi conditus consulatus videretur, i. e. he was sure of it, id. Mur. 24, 49.— 2 Trop.: teneo omnia; in pectore condita sunt, Plaut. Ps. 4, 1, 31: mandata corde memori, Cat. 64, 231: tu, qui omne bonum in visceribus medullisque condideris, Cic. Tusc. 5, 9, 27: in causis conditae sunt res futurae, lie, are contained, id. Div. 1, 56, 128.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... isandshort

[Qimmik]

The basic Latin vocabulary is relatively poor. Many words, particularly verbs, have a wide range of meanings, so when you come to a passage you don't understand, it makes sense to look up key words you think you know to make sure you haven't missed a meaning.

[swtwentyman]

Thanks, and thanks for the advice. I looked up the giants/gigantomachy on Wikipedia and found that there was a section on Ovid that basically cleared up any trouble I was having with that part, too. Next I'm going to read De Amicitia; I have a student edition but I also have the Loeb volume (together wwith the De Senectute) to consult when I need it so I shouldn't need much help.

[Qimmik]

Sorry, I forgot to take up your question about the Gigantomachy. Ferunt means "they [impersonal] say/report". The passive can be used this way, too. fertur/feruntur: "he/they is/are said/reported to".

[swtwentyman]

I figured it out.