Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

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
Julius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:20 pm
Location: Paris

Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Julius »

Hi! I'm sorry to interrupt but I have a question too. In page 6 of Ørberg's edition of Caesar there's passage that gives me a little trouble.
Gallōrum aliquot populī, Ambiorīge duce, Eburōnum rēge, dēfēcērunt. Ā quibus Cotta et Titūrius, lēgātī Caesaris, circumventī īnsidiīs cum exercitū cui praeerant caesī sunt. Et cum aliārum quoque legiōnum casta oppugnāta magnō labōre dēfēnsa essent, inter quae eius cui in Trēverīs praeerat Q. Cicerō, ab ipsō Caesare hostēs poeliō fūsī sunt.
As I understand: cum –casta oppugnāta– aliārum quoque legiōnum [castra?] dēfēnsa essent magnō labōre.

Is he talking about two castra? Are the castra oppugnata of the ablative those of Cotta and Titurius that are being besieged while simultaneously the castra of the other legions are being defended?

Or is the castra oppugnata referring to the same ones that are being defended magnō labōre? If so how do you explain that construction? Could someone paraphrase that for me?
inter quae eius cui in Trēverīs praeerat Q. Cicerō,
As I understand inter quae (scil. castra) eius cui in Trēverīs praeerat Q. Cicerō,

What's the purpose of eius? Do I have to presuppose an elided exercitus (gen)? To get: "inter quae [castra] eius [exercitus] cui in Trēverīs praeerat Q. Cicerō,"?

Otherwise I have no idea what to make of the eius or the cui.

I'm sorry for changing the subject but I'm new and I can't make new threads.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: cum sex annos natus essem

Post by mwh »

Hi again Julius,
You’re not interrupting! But this would have been better as a new thread, yes.

cast<r>a oppugnata (you must be right about the typo), nom.pl., is simply the subject of defensa essent. Other legions’ forts were also attacked but were successfully defended.

eius. I think you’re nearly there, but the understood referent is not exercitus but legionis: “among which (castra) [was the castrum] of that (legion) that Q.Cic. commanded.” It’s uncomfortably elliptical, with both the subject and the verb of the inter quae clause left unexpressed.

RandyGibbons
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: cum sex annos natus essem

Post by RandyGibbons »

Hi Julius. Let me also welcome you to Textkit. I like your questions already!

msw said correctly that you really should have started a new topic here, but not to worry. Any time you have a question about HOW to use Textkit, I highly recommend you reach out to Joel Eidsath. Joel is a Textkit adminstrator and a frequent commentator in the Reading Greek forum. He has been tremendously gracious and helpful to me with similar questions.

Randy Gibbons

Julius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:20 pm
Location: Paris

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Julius »

Hi, again. Thank you both for your answers. You solved all my doubts. Sorry for not answering I don't usually go online.

I decided to keep on reading Caesar beyond Ørberg's anthology. Some other questions emerged.
itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat ac maxime plebi acceptus erat, ut idem conaretur persuadet eique filiam suam in matrimonium dat.
Why is plebi in dative? I understand what it all means but the construction gives me trouble. Would the phrase "Sum maxime acceptus Romanis" be acceptable?
persuadent Rauracis et Tulingis et Latobrigis finitimis uti eodem usi consilio oppidis suis vicisque exustis una cum iis proficiscantur
Same problem as with the previous question I understand what it means, but I don't understand how's that usi working grammatically. If I were to rephrase everything as "Persuadeo eis ut eodem usi consilio una mecum proficiscantur" would the usi still be grammatically correct? What if it were singular "Persuadeo Marco ut eodem usus (?) consilio una mecum proficiscatur"?
Helvetii ea spe deiecti navibus iunctis ratibusque compluribus factis, alii vadis Rhodani, qua minima altitudo fluminis erat
Ørberg explains that qua as adverbial and synonymous with "ubi". Is it common? Is there any stylistic/grammatical reason why Caesar uses it instead of "ubi"? Or why don't use the ablative "quo"?
demonstrant sibi praeter agri solum nihil esse reliqui
Why reliqui? Why not reliquum?
hos seditiosa atque improba oratione multitudinem deterrere, ne frumentum conferant, quod debeant: praestare, si iam principatum Galliae obtinere non possent, Gallorum quam Romanorum imperia perferre
This is mere curiosity. I understand it, but I noticed that the latest Teubner edition (Hering, 1997) reads "ne frumentum conferant, quod praestare debeant;" As I am no classics mayor and totally ignorant of the reasoning behind such editorial editions I wonder if anyone has an idea of why the editor made this (in my eyes so minimal) change.
reperiebat etiam in quaerendo Caesar, quod proelium equestre adversum paucis ante diebus esset factum, initium eius fugae factum ab Dumnorige atque eius equitibus—nam equitatui, quem auxilio Caesari Haedui miserant, Dumnorix praeerat—; eorum fuga reliquum esse equitatum perterritum.
Here's the quod that gives me trouble, that and the (missing?) link with the rest of the idea (initium eius fugae...). If I understood correctly. I could disentangle it thus: "Caesar reperiebat, quod proelium [quod] esset paucis ante diebus factum..." And then I don't understand how that's grammatically linked to the next phrase "initium eius fugae factum [esse] ab Dumnorige atque eius equitibus..."

I'm sorry for the noob questions but I'm a mere amateur with no relationship whatsoever with classical scholarship.

RandyGibbons
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by RandyGibbons »

Hi, Julius. Great questions. Here's my shot at answering them.
maxime plebi acceptus erat : Why is plebi in dative? Would the phrase "Sum maxime acceptus Romanis" be acceptable?
A little editorializing first. I think it is significant that you said "I understand what it all means but the construction gives me trouble." To me, that is the right way to read. First and most importantly, you have figured out what the sentence clearly has to mean. Second, you have a question about the construction. I think there's two ways to answer the question. The first is, you have already answered your own question by having figured out what the sentence and phrase clearly has to mean. Clearly acceptus [dative] was a common Roman phrase, its meaning clear from the context. And therefore, yes, I would think sum maxime acceptus Romanis would be acceptable. The second way of answering the question would be to consult one or more grammar books and determine which named use of the dative you think acceptus [dative] most clearly corresponds to - an exercise I leave to you or to another Textkitter!
eodem usi consilio : If I were to rephrase everything as Persuadeo eis ut eodem usi consilio una mecum proficiscantur would the usi still be grammatically correct? What if it were singular Persuadeo Marco ut eodem usus consilio una mecum proficiscatur?
It seems to me you understand the construction perfectly. Utor is a deponent verb that governs the ablative (and is extremely common). Its participle is usus. The nominative (in this case) participle must agree in gender and number with its subject. eis : usi (gender clearly masculine), Marco : usus.
qua minima altitudo fluminis erat : Ørberg explains that qua is adverbial and synonymous with ubi. Is it common? Is there any stylistic/grammatical reason why Caesar uses it instead of ubi? Or why not use the ablative quo?
Whatever Ørberg says is good for me. Is qua common? Enough in my own reading at least that I wouldn't have questioned it. Why did your namesake use qua instead of the synonymous ubi? Beats me. Sounds like a project for an ambitious graduate student: Hit the concordances and write a brilliant paper on the respective uses of qua and ubi by time, author, and genre! Could he have used quo instead? To me at least (and I'm too lazy at the moment to consult the dictionary), quo implies motion toward. Qua = where, quo = whither. Others may wish to comment.
nihil esse reliqui : Why not reliquum?
Simply because - if the manuscripts are consistent on this point - he opted here for the common idiom using the (partitive?) genitive. I wouldn't bat an eye at either construction, though you've got me wondering if nihil reliqui is a bit literary and less likely in normal conversational Latin?
quod debeant / quod praestare debeant : I wonder if anyone has an idea of why the editor made this (in my eyes so minimal) change.
Welcome to the reality of ancient texts and their many manuscript variants and suggested emendations. The answer should be in the critical apparatus of your Teubner edition, which I do not have at hand. Are there manuscript variants according to the apparatus, from which the editor had to choose? If so, read his preface in order to understand which manuscripts he gives the most weight to and why. Or, is praestare an emendation? If so, by this editor or a previous one? Is a reason indicated or source given (e.g., a journal article) that you can evaluate or further research if interested? (You've graduated from Ørberg to the Teubner. If you're curious or interested in some good introductions to textual criticism, I can suggest some, but not currently since I'm out of town and away from my library.)
reperiebat ..., quod proelium equestre adversum paucis ante diebus esset factum, initium eius fugae factum ab Dumnorige : The quod gives me trouble.
I think quod here means "because" (quite common): "Caesar came to know by inquiring that it was because [according to his informants, which is why esset factum is in the subjunctive] the equestrian battle of a few days ago had turned out bad that the flight of Dumnorix and his cavalry was initiated."
I'm a mere amateur with no relationship whatsoever with classical scholarship.
Why not? You're clearly very good at it! Again, great questions.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by mwh »

Julius, A caveat on Randy’s breezy “editorializing.” It can happen—it all too often does happen—that someone thinks they understand something when in fact they don’t. Just going with what “clearly has to be the meaning” doesn’t always work. You need to understand the Latin properly before you can be sure.
And that’s just what you’ve been aiming to do. What’s “good enough” for Randy may not be good enough for you or me. I agree that your questions are excellent ones, well above the average we get here. Keep it up!

Nesrad
Textkit Fan
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Nesrad »

mwh wrote:Julius, A caveat on Randy’s breezy “editorializing.” It can happen—it all too often does happen—that someone thinks they understand something when in fact they don’t. Just going with what “clearly has to be the meaning” doesn’t always work. You need to understand the Latin properly before you can be sure.
And that’s just what you’ve been aiming to do. What’s “good enough” for Randy may not be good enough for you or me. I agree that your questions are excellent ones, well above the average we get here. Keep it up!
This is what bothers me about the whole Orberg series. Unless you have a teacher, there's no sure way to know if you understand what you're reading. That's why I'm not convinced it's the best for autodidacts.

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Aetos »

Hi Nesrad,
I'm in the same boat, really. I've been rereading Caesar from my 2nd year Scudder (the first time I read it was 52 years ago!). I'll confess that when I'm unsure about the meaning of a particular passage, I resort to Perseus and check the McDevitte & Bohn translation, because as mwh pointed out above, sometimes one thinks he understands something when he doesn't. I've embarrassed myself enough times to know the truth of that statement! There are bilinear translations out there, as well as the Loeb, but I prefer to keep the English hidden until I absolutely need it. I have noticed that as I progress, I'm able to tackle larger amounts of material in one sitting, so hopefully that's happening for you as well. BTW, I'm not recommending Scudder. I just had the book, so I used it. It's been edited for high school students, so it's far from complete but good enough for my purposes.

Julius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:20 pm
Location: Paris

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Julius »

I really don't understand the hate Ørberg gets, all of the arguments I've heard against him seem to me like nitpicking. As I said I'm no expert, I have never even opened a Latin Grammar in my life and I purposely am trying to avoid looking at a translation or a student's commentary to see if I can read Caesar as is. But if I did stumble upon a passage that I didn't understand, won't it all be solved by simply looking at a translation to help me out?

Or do the people that learned Latin other way never had to consult a translation? Why would having to ask sometimes in a forum about a difficult passage or consulting a translation invalidate the method if it brought you this far?

The only questions I've had, I placed in this forum, either of passages not included in Ørberg's anthology or of passages that do not come with a paraphrase, I'm really sure I understood everything else. I'm no classicist and have no desire to become one, so I do not have any need to make boring (yes I find it boring) mental elucidations of abstract grammar concepts.

Not having a teacher will always be a disadvantage in anything, but I'm convinced that it's in no way a necessity. Ultimately isn't that what the internet and sites such as this are for?

For my part I only had the Familia Romana, I've only recently discovered the anthologies and have been listening to some spoken Latin podcasts.

I've had terrible encounters with "experts" that either openly discriminated me for my social standing (I'm a plumber with an embarrassing lack of academic background) or told me it was impossible to learn Latin with the only book I felt wouldn't put me to sleep. I bought my Familia Romana a little more than a year ago, and only at nights did I ever have some time to study it. I really feel like I've made progress, I'm sure that if had had the advantages of more free time and a teacher I would have advanced more quickly, a couple of times I took a look at other Latin methods in the library and they literally put me to sleep or confused me.

It's true that if you were to examine my ability to analyse the grammar of even the most basic sentences I would probably fail, but I do not want to analyse grammar, I want to read and enjoy. Let's take for example the sentence that still gives me trouble:
reperiebat etiam in quaerendo Caesar, quod proelium equestre adversum paucis ante diebus esset factum, initium eius fugae factum ab Dumnorige atque eius equitibus—nam equitatui, quem auxilio Caesari Haedui miserant, Dumnorix praeerat—; eorum fuga reliquum esse equitatum perterritum.
I cannot explain for the life of me explain why the grammar stands as it is, but I can paraphrase it:

in quaerendo Caesar etiam reperiebat initium fugae proelii equestris –quod ante paucis diebus esset factum– ab Dumnorige atque eius equitibus factum esse nam...

If I make a mistake or have a doubt I can ask and get corrected, why isn't that enough? I'm convinced that if I had tried any other methodology I would have given up. Other methods may be more suitable for professionals that must have a sound knowledge of grammar and know how to defend their views in front of academics, but for humble people like me and autodidacts in general I simply cannot convince a better method.

Nesrad
Textkit Fan
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Nesrad »

Julius wrote:I really don't understand the hate Ørberg gets
What hate? All I ever hear is praise. Whenever I dare to say something less than adulatory, members of the Orberg sect get all defensive, as if their favourite method were divinely inspired.

Besides, I just said I'm not convinced it's the best for autodidacts. It can work for autodidacts, and it has some very strong qualities. There's no need to be susceptible.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

There is nothing wrong with consulting a translation to check your work, although I advise working through the Latin as exhaustively as possible before doing so. A caveat: English translations don't always, perhaps more often than not, reflect the structure of the Latin. It often requires quite a bit of thought to see how the translator got from point a to point b, but that reflection in itself can be quite helpful.

You say that you wish neither to be a classicist nor a grammarian, but that you want to read and enjoy the Latin. I found that quite amusing (in the positive sense). If you spend enough time reading and enjoying the Latin, you will to some extent become a classicist and a grammarian, whether you intended to do so or not. It's because people want to read an enjoy the Latin (and the Greek) that they become classicists and grammarians... :)
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

RandyGibbons
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by RandyGibbons »

Hello again, Julius.

I admire and am fascinated by your (very successful) efforts to read real ancient Latin without ever opening a Latin Grammar. In language-learning forums like this, "grammar" is an over-burdened term. I prefer the metaphor "shoemaker's last" from the twentieth-century polyglot Kató Lomb (whose very non-technical, easy-and-enjoyable-to-read book Polyglot: How I Learn Languages you and others may find interesting).

If I said I never consulted a translation to resolve an impasse, I'd be a liar. If I said I've never done that a thousand times, I'd be a liar. Doing so is not an impure stain on the process of learning a language!

I loved Familia Romana, and the very mention of it makes me remember with amusement that naughty older brother. My favorite scene is the young lady and man servants escaping in a storm-tossed boat when ... but let me not be a spoiler, in case you haven't gotten that far. But I had had plenty of formal training in Latin grammar before reading it, so I can't comment on its efficacy as a self-contained, self-sufficient resource for learning basic Latin. But with all due respect, Nesrad, wouldn't you agree that whatever works works, and that won't be the same for everyone?

Here's the dilemma, though. When you seek correction, it's difficult to respond without invoking ... grammar! My esteemed Textkit colleague msw (who dislikes my editorials!) is much better at this than I am; I think he's a teacher by profession (Michael, correct me if I'm wrong), and I'm not.

If we were having coffee together at an outdoor Parisian cafe this fine summer day, I'd try reading the "quod" sentence to you several times to see if I could better convey its meaning to you by my brilliant delivery ..., which probably wouldn't work!
The original: reperiebat etiam in quaerendo Caesar, quod proelium equestre adversum paucis ante diebus esset factum, initium eius fugae factum ab Dumnorige atque eius equitibus—nam equitatui, quem auxilio Caesari Haedui miserant, Dumnorix praeerat—; eorum fuga reliquum esse equitatum perterritum.
Your paraphrase: in quaerendo Caesar etiam reperiebat initium fugae proelii equestris – quod ante paucis diebus esset factum – ab Dumnorige atque eius equitibus factum esse nam...
I think what you're still getting wrong is that you're treating quod as a relative pronoun, whereas in this passage it's a conjunction meaning "because", "in that". The difficulty may be that it is forward looking: 'because [according to his informants] ... [for that reason] the flight had been undertaken'.

A signpost here is that the quod clause is in the subjunctive, which means it is reported speech (Caesar is conveying what he learned from his informants, not his own deduction). Understood as a relative pronoun, it wouldn't be in the subjunctive (unless the question at hand wasn't why Dumnorix fled but how many days ago he fled). If you're not consulting a Latin Grammar, please at least don't refrain from checking out the quod entry in a good Latin dictionary. As for the stitch in the shoemaker's last that says reported speech conveying the view of another uses the subjunctive, whether you can intuit that from continued reading of "the classics" or, alas, can only get it from a grammar book, I can't say.

Unless, per Michael's dictum, I think I understand the sentence but really don't. But that's never happened to me :D.

----------------------
By the way, there's no such thing as an "embarrassing" lack of academic background, at least not in my orbit.

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Question about passage in Ørberg's edition of Caesar

Post by Aetos »

Hi Randy,
I just wanted to thank you for that link to Polyglot! I don't usually read non-fiction, but when I do...
I guess I'll prefer Dr. Lomb! I've only read the introduction so far, but I find her stories just delightful. I can see she's definitely not a building block method learner; more like someone standing on top of a flagpole with one foot and a long rake who pulls in material until she can stand with two feet.

Post Reply