Devictis Sabinis, cum in magna gloria magnisque opibus regnum Tulli ac tota res Romana esset, nuntiatum regi patribusque est ‘in monte Albano lapides de caelo cecidisse.’ Etiam vox ingens ex summo monte audita Albanos monuisse dicitur ‘ut patrio ritu sacra facerent.’ Nam, velut dis quoque simul cum patria relictis, Albani aut Romana sacra susceperant [suscipere = accipere et suum facere] aut fortunae irati cultum [cultus, -us (m) < colere] reliquerant deorum.
The Sabines having been defeated, whilst the royal authority of Tullus and indeed the entire Roman state should be in great glory and power, it was announced to the king and the senators that rocks were falling from the sky on Mount Albanus. Accordingly a great voice from the top of the mountain is said to have warned the Albani to make sacrifices according to the manner of their fathers. Then, as if the gods along with the country were abandoned, the Albani had either adopted the roman rituals or, angry at their fortune, relinquished the cultivation of the gods.
Then, as if the gods along with the country were abandoned,
Isn’t this passive voice ’ as if abandoned by the gods as well as the country…the Albani either accepted the Roman religion or angered by [their] fortune had abandoned worship of the gods…?
Albani is nominative but relictis is ablative and can’t agree with Albani. Relictis must agree with dis. You got this right in your first post. “As if their gods had been given up along with their country”, i.e., as if the Albans had given up their gods, just as they gave up their own state to merge with the Romans.
dis relictis is an ablative absolute so the ablative is used. Relinquo being a transitive verb, the meaning of the ablative absolute is passive: “the gods having been left behind”.
‘abandoned by the gods’ would be something like ‘relictis a dis’ I guess.
Plus, there is the fact that if ‘relictis’ refered to the Albans, the subject of the main sentence (‘Albani … susceperant’) and of the ablative absolute would be the same person, something that is usually not possible.
pmda, You’re now five years in, as I see from your first post in 2010. To judge from your most recent posts here, you’re still working exclusively on Orberg and you’re still confused by a simple ablative absolute even when it’s been explained to you. One has to wonder whether there’s a connexion between the two. Perhaps it’s time to venture beyond Orberg? I fear a diet of nothing but Orberg may be stultifying (Latin would respect the metaphor and say constipating). Just a suggestion. You have to find your own best way of learning, but this doesn’t appear to be it.
PS. As I understand it (I don’t know the book), Ørberg is designed to work by contextual induction (much like the so-called “natural” method but rigorously progressive and with systematic exposition of new grammar encountered in the graded readings), fostering gradually improved working knowledge of the language without translating. But that’s not how you’re using it. It’s generally a mistake to fight the pedagogy of a learning tool.
I like the Ørberg method, myself (though I think translation is indispensable for conveying one’s understanding of the original), and perhaps after all you should stick with it, without always turning the Latin into English. Translating can hold you up, and it can get in the way of reading Latin as Latin rather than as something to be decoded and recoded in a different language (with the inevitable semantic distortion that that entails). You might want to make more use of the exercises, the “pensa” (which I admit I haven’t seen). If you submit your answers or queries to this forum I expect you’ll get any necessary help. I trust you realize how incredibly fortunate you are to have people here (not me, I’m afraid) with preternatural patience and unflagging willingness to correct mistakes and explain things.
The problem is with my English rather than my Latin (how worrying is that - some 53 years on?) My first attempt at translating this ablative absolute was in the passive voice and was correct.
actually mwh, yes you’re right. I shouldn’t translate. I started doing it as a way of confirming my understanding of the Latin. It’s a slippery slope..
PS I have started with Evan der Millner’s Adler recordings and have a copy of Adler’s Grammar…
PPS For what it’s worth in terms of my Latin ability I can read all of the Latin in Orberg’s LLPSI up to and including Cap XLIII with 99% comprehension almost as quickly as English.
And yes I certainly do realise I incredibly fortunate I am.
