Conjunctivus potentialis

Latin Learning Latin
1

Aeneis book VI line 470:

illa solo fixos oculos auersa tenebat
nec magis incepto uultum sermone mouetur
quam si dura silex aut stet Marpesia cautes.

Why is this a conjunctivus potentialis, why not just ‘staret’ as an irrealis of the present?

vale.

2
<?xml version="1.0"?>
3

If it was a coniunctivus imperfectum, the translation would be correct too. Id est:


She, aversed, kept her eyes tight on the ground,
and is (praesens historicum) not moved concerning her face by the started conversation more, than if a hard stone or Marpesian rock
would stand there.

Now it is:

[…] than if a hard stone would [be able, this is the potentialis part] stand there.

Why does Vergil prefer the second option? [/b]

4

She, aversed, kept her eyes tight on the ground,
and is (praesens historicum) not moved concerning her face by the started conversation more, than if a hard stone or Marpesian rock
would stand there.

  1. I think ‘stet’ has Dido as subject, not the rock(s). See the note I quoted above concerning the predicate nominatives (‘silex’ and ‘cautes’). You know the kind of thing: ‘he seems a coward’, ‘I felt a real fool’, ‘you look a treat’, etc, where the word after certain verbs refers back to the subject and is thus nominative too. So ‘she stands/is stone’, so to speak (though in the subjunctive). And here ‘stet’ has the force of ‘sit’. Hopefully someone more versed in grammatical terminology will spell out to us the subtle differences in implication and usage between ‘irrealis’ and ‘potentialis’.

than if a hard stone … would stand there



than if a hard stone would [ … ] stand there

Sorry, I can’t see any difference between your two translations. Of course, it’s difficult translating the subjunctive into a language like English that has lost nearly all traces of the subjunctive.

Why does Vergil prefer the second option?

If you accept that Vergil’s use of the present subjunctive (conjunctivus potentialisis) is OK, what’s the problem? Who knows what went on in Virgil’s mind at the time of writing? Perhaps the dactylic hexameter had something to do with it?

And as for multiple interpretations, how about this one from an old interlinear version:

‘She, turning away, held her eyes fastened on the ground; nor more is she moved in her countenance by his begun discourse, than if he (yes, he, Aeneas!) should stand a firm flint or Marpesian cliffâ€:trade_mark:. Hmmm, it’s not impossible, I suppose. :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Int