Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

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.
gerases
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:36 pm

Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by gerases » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:53 pm

Nec dubium est, quid post haec Augustus constituerit, et reliquerit eum nullo praeter auguralis sacerdotii honore impertitum ac ne heredem quidem nisi inter tertios ac paene extraneos e parte sexta nuncuparet, legato quoque non amplius quam octingentorum sestertiorum prosecutus.
The meaning is clear, but any idea why "nuncupo" is in the subjunctive here? Unless there's some hint of a purpose clause, which is tough for me to incorporate here.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by adrianus » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:44 pm

"and he would not have named him heir at all except [he did, but] among those third-removed and practically strangers [/barely related], [who were] due for a sixth part [of his estate]"
Situation contrary to fact, since he did include him.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

gerases
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by gerases » Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Situation contrary to fact, since he did include him.
But then why not "nuncupavisset" (to observe the sequence of tenses)?

To complicate it a bit further, a note about that sentence says that instead of "e parte sexta", second Roman edition had "ne parte sexta".

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... dius*.html

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by adrianus » Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:32 pm

Is it any wonder [primary tense] what Augustus resolved [perfect subjunctive completed action] after these things, and that he left him bestowed [perfect subjunctive completed action] of no honour other than that of augural priest, and would not have named him [contrary to fact, A&G §485g] his heir at all other than among those third-removed and practically strangers due [only] a sixth [of his estate], and even stipulated a legacy of no more than 800,000 sesterces.
nuncupavisset [pluperfect subjunctive—How does this observe the sequence of tenses after a primary tense?] = "and had not named him his heir at all other than among..."

I don't pretend I'm confident about this.
De hoc, non confidenter postulo.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

gerases
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by gerases » Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:24 am

The problem with contrary to the fact is that with imperfect subj it signifies
something contrary to now and the narration is about the past. So you can't
translate that as "wouldn't have" can you? I admit I was wrong about the sequence
of tenses. But what about the alternative reading?

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by adrianus » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:06 am

gerases wrote:The problem with contrary to the fact is that with imperfect subj it signifies
something contrary to now and the narration is about the past. So you can't translate that as "wouldn't have" can you?
Not so. I believe you can. Consider this from A&G:
Minimè, ut opinor. Habe hoc e grammaticâ de A&G (§486g):
Quaero a te cur C. Cornelium non defenderem?
I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cur non defenderem?]
id est, "I ask you why should I not have defended..."

or "Is it any wonder...that he should not have named him his heir..."
gerases wrote:But what about the alternative reading?
You mean with nuncupavisset? I gave the alternative reading above and it doesn't sound right to me, but this is all after the fact so I might be misleading myself.
Alteram lectionem jam supra dedi. Ea malè sonat, ut mihi videtur, at a posteriori rem cogito, quâ ratione difficile est praejudicium eximi.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

gerases
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by gerases » Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:36 pm

Quaero a te cur C. Cornelium non defenderem?
I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cur non defenderem?]
I don't know the context of that sentence but it just looks as a direct question within oratio obliqua, not something contrary to the fact. I.e.,

I ask you why I was not defending Cornelius.

... or at least at can be construed that way. Even your translation there doesn't convey something contrary to the fact, does it? Though you are right, and I realized it later last night, that contrary-to-the-fact in the past is expressed in the same way as in the present within oratio obliqua. From Bennett 321:
Direct: sī hōc crēderēs, errārēs;
Indirect: dīcō (dīxī), sī hōc crēderēs, tē errātūrum esse;
You mean with nuncupavisset? I gave the alternative reading above and it doesn't sound right to me, but this is all after the fact so I might be misleading myself.
No, I was referring to a note I found regarding that sentence on the web site from which I'm reading Suetonius. The note said that in the second Roman edition it read as "ne parte sexta nuncuparet" instead of "e parte sexta nuncuparet". Which completely dumbfounded me because in that case it's a negative purpose clause.

Also, according to another note about that sentence, the first "et" in the sentence is in some editions "cum", which in my opinion is better than "et" in that case.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by adrianus » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:33 pm

gerases wrote:...I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cur non defenderem?]...
I don't know the context of that sentence but it just looks as a direct question within oratio obliqua, not something contrary to the fact. I.e.,

I ask you why I was not defending Cornelius.

... or at least at can be construed that way. Even your translation there doesn't convey something contrary to the fact, does it?
That's not my translation; that's A&G's translation to illustrate something contrary to fact. They're right.
Non mihi sunt haec verba sed citatio est de A&G. Illorum auctorum verba rem adverùs facta illuminantia. Non erravit qui sic vertit.

"You say that I should not have defended X, as I did. I ask you why should I not have defended X?"
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by adrianus » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:48 pm

gerases wrote:No, I was referring to a note I found regarding that sentence on the web site from which I'm reading Suetonius. The note said that in the second Roman edition it read as "ne parte sexta nuncuparet" instead of "e parte sexta nuncuparet". Which completely dumbfounded me because in that case it's a negative purpose clause.

Also, according to another note about that sentence, the first "et" in the sentence is in some editions "cum", which in my opinion is better than "et" in that case.
nec dubium est ne [eum] heredem...ne parte sexta nuncuparet.
"And is it any wonder that he would have not named him as heir, nor [even] named him [with those] from out of the sixth part [typically given to those outside the family]."
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

gerases
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

Post by gerases » Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:01 pm

Thank you much for your insight.

While we're on the subjunctive, can you explain to me its use here (ex eodem opere):
Nec eo minus contumeliis obnoxius vixit. Nam et si paulo serius ad praedictam cenae horam occurrisset, non nisi aegre et circuito demum triclinio recipiebatur, et quotiens post cibum addormisceret, quod ei fere accidebat, olearum aut palmularum ossibus incessebatur, interdum ferula flagrove velut per ludum excitabatur a copreis.
Under what use of subjunctive do occurrisset and addormisceret fall and why is addormiscere in the imperfect and not in the pluperfect like occurrisset?

Post Reply