Ecloga II

Lines 10-11, painting a picture of the situation:

Thesylis et rapido fessis messoribus aestu
alia serpullumque herbas contundit olentis.

(I took some leaps of faith on this and the other so I might be completely off. “Et” is delayed to the second word: “and Thesylis mashes garlic and wild thyme, aromatic herbs, for the reapers tired by the consuming heat.”)

Lines 14-15:

Nonne fuit satius tristis Amaryllidos iras
atque superba pati fastidia?

(“It was more satisfying, wasn’t it, when I endured Amaryllis’ harsh outbursts of anger and arrogant disdain?” This one I’m less sure about. The sense seems right – Corylus is addressing Alexis and bringing up former lovers unfavorably (Amaryllis gets around, doesn’t she?)-- but I can’t figure out the infinitive “pati”. There’s such a thing as an historical infinitive: is that what’s going on here?)

Lines 10-11: you got this right. I would probably translate contundit with English progressive “is mashing”. He’s telling us that it’s lunchtime, in the heat of the day (and the heat of Corydon’s passion).

Nonne fuit satius . . . pati – “Wasn’t it enough to endure . . . ?” or maybe “Wasn’t it more than enough to endure . . . ?”

The historical infinitive is generally found in prose narrative.

Thanks for the clarification as to the time of day.

Lines 19-27 is short but tricky:

Despectus tibi sum nec qui sim quaeris, Alexi,
quam diues pecoris, niuei quam lactis abundans.

(“I am despicable in your eyes, yet you do not ask who I am, Alexis, nor how rich I am in cattle, nor how abundant I am in snow-white milk.” I think I finally got an indirect question right; if I’m not mistaken, the omission of “nec” is asyndeton?)

Lac mihi non aestate nouom, non frigore defit.

(“I do not know my milk by the season; its coldness never fails.” My biggest obstacle is “nouom”. It’s apparently an archaic form? I actually didn’t have a clue about this line until I just typed it out, and it seems at least close to right. Doesn’t “deesse” take the dative? Here it’s in the ablative. Ed: no, that’s its object. Ablative of respect? “It never fails in its coldness.”)

Canto quae solitus, si quando, armenta vocabat,
Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho.

(I’m less sure of this one. “Whenever (it needs it?), I sing as the Theban Amphion in the Attic Aracynthus was accustomed to calling his flock.” I’m still not sure about this but this is the best I can do. It took forever to think of looking to the next line.)

Non ego Daphnin
iudice te, metuam, si numquam fallit imago.

(“If the reflection never decieves me, I do not fear Daphnis with you as judge.” I take it Daphnis was beautiful? Why the subjunctive “metuam” if the protasis is in the indicative? “Fallit” is present-as-future, as in English? Ed2: It makes perfect sense of indeed the present “fallit” is to be construed as a future.)

19-20 – You got this basically right–indirect questions with quaeris. “Despicable” is not quite the right word, though. De-spicio is literally “to look down on”. Nec = “and . . . not”“You look down on me, Alexis, and you don’t inquire who I am [i.e., you don’t see that I’m someone more important than you think], how rich I am in cattle, how abundantly provided with snow-white milk.” It’s a sort of asyndeton, but even in English connectives aren’t really needed. Note the poetic genitive with diues and abundans, which I think would usually take ablatives. Check Lewis and Short on this.

Lac mihi non aestate nouom, non frigore defit.

nouom is an archaic spelling (o instead of u after u) for nouum, “new”.

“Fresh milk is not lacking for me in the heat, in the cold.” In other words, “I’m never out of fresh milk in summer or winter.”

As I mentioned before, Coleman likes these archaic spellings, which most editors normalize. The manuscripts sometimes–and inconsistently–preserve the archaic spellings, but it’s not clear whether that’s because Vergil used them, or they entered the manuscript tradition as conscious archaisms later than Vergil. Vergil’s text is almost unique in that the principal mss. date from late antiquity, and there’s a flood of mss. from the 9th century on. For most authors, we’re lucky to have a handful of 9th century mss., and for many we have none earlier than the high middle ages or even the renaissance. In some cases the first printed edition is our only source.

Canto quae solitus, si quando, armenta vocabat,
Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho.

Canto quae Amphion Dircaeus solitus erat si quando armenta uocabat in Arctaeo Aracyntho.

si quando – literally “if ever,” is equivalent to “whenever.” si often combines with indefinite pronouns, adjectives and adverbs as an equivalent to corresponding English words ending in “-ever”. For example, si quis, literally “if anyone” is often equivalent to “whoever.” Look up si in the on-line version of the big Lewis and Short. There shouldn’t be a comma after quando.

“I sing what Dircaean Amphion used to sing in Actaean Aracynth whenever he called his flocks.”

Coleman explains the mythological references. The important thing to notice is the line made up entirely of four Greek names (with a tiny function word), with Greek-like hiatus between Artaeo Aracyntho and a rhythm that is Greek to the point of being antithetical to the rhythm of the Latin hexameter.

Runnning throughout this eclogue, I think, is a tension, perhaps intended to be slightly comical, between Corydon’s status as a humble rustic and the homely subject-matter of his song, on the one hand, and the self-consciously elaborate and sophisticated diction in which his song is cast, on the other hand. Corydon is supposed to be a shepherd, but his song is that of a Roman love poet–specifically, a Roman neoteric elegist. In the poem of Theocritus on which this eclogue is based, the central figure corresponding to Corydon is the uncouth and savage cyclops Polyphemus–young and in love with the sea-nymph Galatea (instead of lambs or kids, he offers Galatea two bear-cubs). Ecl. 2 has something of the same incongruity but carries it further.

Non ego Daphnin
iudice te, metuam, si numquam fallit imago.

metuam is a “future less vivid” apodosis–akin to a potential subjunctive. faillit is the protasis of a present conditional. But there is a future less vivid protasis disguised in the ablative absolute: “If you were to/should judge between Daphnis and me, I would/should not fear [comparison with] him, assuming my reflection doesn’t deceive me.”

You can think of the apodosis of the present conditional fallit as the entire future less vivid conditional si tu iudex sis, non ego Daphnin metuam.

Thanks. I’ve read your response several times: I really ought to be taking notes.

You’re right that there shouldn’t be a comma after “si quando”; whoever had the book before me had underlined it and it looked like a comma at the end of it. Without that I probably would have gotten it.

What’s special about the ninth century in manuscripts?

What’s special about the ninth century in manuscripts?

The Carolingian renaissance. In most cases, for classical Latin authors at least, our earliest manuscripts date from this period, when there was a revival of interest in ancient literature in a number of centers in Europe, and a more or less systematic effort to discover and copy manuscripts from antiquity and preserve ancient texts began. It’s very unusual to have manuscripts (other than papyri fragments) dating all the way back to (late) antiquity. We have three more or less complete mss. of the complete works in Vergil’s case, and three others that are fragmentary. There are some problems in the text of Vergil, but by and large Vergil’s text is the best preserved of any ancient Latin text.

I slept in yesterday and had somewhere to go so I did lines 28-44 yesterday and today. I think I’m good for the most part, save for a line and a half.

35: Corydon is discussing piping and describing his pipe:

Haec eadem ut sciret, quid non faciebat Amyntas?

I have trouble with compact sentences like this. It’s probably very simple (as with the other line I’m having trouble with). Do you have a good strategy for going after this type of sentence? Putting it in prose order only works if you already have a good idea of the sense. “Non Amyntas faciebat quid ut haec eadem sciret”? “Ut” goes with the subjunctive “sciret” so “as” is out of the question. “Has Amyntas not made/done this, in order to know the same thing?” That’s not it either. I’m not looking for the answer so much as how to make sense of sentences like this. Ed: maybe “Did not Amyntas make pipes”? The second part still doesn’t make sense.

40: a transition from the pipe to his roebucks:

Nec tuta mihi valle reperti

“Tuta” by the meter is ablative with “valle”. “In a safe valley” or something, I imagine. From the hints I take this to mean “nor am I to be found in a safe valley” but from the text that’s obviously not it. The full line is “praeterea duo - nec tuta mihi valle reperti”: “Besides these two (Damoetas and Amyntas) - they were not found (nec reperti) to me in a safe valley”. I’m tempted to call “mihi” an ethical dative and call it a day. I need to start figuring out short sentences though.

Haec eadem ut sciret, quid non faciebat Amyntas?

faciebat could be read as a conative imperfect:

“What did Amyntas not [try to] do in order to learn these same songs?”

Or perhaps imperfect indicative (instead of subjunctive) in a kind of contrary to fact conditional:

“What would Amyntas not have done in order to know/learn these same [songs]?”

Allen & Greenough 517b:

b. In the apodosis of a condition contrary to fact the past tenses of the Indicative may be used to express what was intended, or likely, or already begun. In this use, the Imperfect Indicative corresponds in time to the Imperfect Subjunctive, and the Perfect or Pluperfect Indicative to the Pluperfect Subjunctive:—

“sī licitum esset, mātrēs veniēbant ” (Verr. 5.129) , the mothers were coming if it had been allowed.
“in amplexūs fīliae ruēbat, nisi līctōrēs obstitissent ” (Tac. Ann. 16.32) , he was about rushing into his daughter’s arms, unless the lictors had opposed.
“iam tūta tenēbam, nī gēns crūdēlis ferrō invāsisset ” (Aen. 6.358) , I was just reaching a place of safety, had not the fierce people attacked me.

[*] Note 1.–Here the apodosis may be regarded as elliptical. Thus,mātrēs venièbant ( et vēnissent ), the matrons were coming (and would have kept on) if, etc.

[*] Note 2.–With paene (and sometimes prope ), almost, the Perfect Indicative is used in the apodosis of a past condition contrary to fact: as,—pōns iter paene hostibus dedit, “nī ūnus vir fuisset” (Liv. 2.10) , the bridge had almost given a passage to the foe, if it had not been for one hero.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+517&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001

Praeterea duo nec tuta mihi valle reperti
bina die siccant ouis ubera. quos tibi seruo.

This is condensed and elliptical.

duo and reperti refer to the roebuck kids.

Mihi is ethical dative with siccant, I think (possibly dative of agent with reperti.

nec tuta ualle is parenthetical.

"Besides, two roebuck kids (I) found in a valley – and not a safe one [i.e., I didn’t get them easily; I went to the trouble of exposing myself to danger, and implicitly, I did this just for you]-- suck two udders each of an ewe dry in [one] day for me; I’m keeping/saving them for you.

“Besides, I have two roebuck kids I found in a valley – and not a safe one – each sucking the udder of an ewe dry twice a day; I’m keeping them for you.”

As I mentioned, in the Theocritus poem that this one echoes, the Cyclops ludicrously offers Galatea two bear cubs, as if she could not but be delighted to receive them. Here, the gift consists of two more acceptable animals. Corydon is not just a shepherd, but a Roman poet, too; his verses are hardly incondita – (as the poet ironically calls them)–they’re exquisitely polished Latin poetry. So Cordydon’s gift is not grotesque like the Cyclops’. I recall reading somewhere that in Greek pottery depicting idealized pederasty, the lover (erastes) is sometimes depicted making a present of an animal to the object of his affections (the eromenos).

Ecl. 2 is very different from the Theocritus poem in many respects (e.g., male vs. female love-objects), and I think the differences are deliberate. But the main point of the Theocritus poem is that song (poetry) is the best remedy for love, and I think the reader is intended to think of that on reading this transposition of Theocritus’ to a very different setting.

I feel stupid.

Don’t feel stupid. Latin poetry isn’t necessarily easy. The resources of Latin–compression (with no articles and the ability to omit words such as prepositions), radical hyperbaton, extending the meaning of words far beyond their literal meanings, etc. are all pushed to extremes. It’s almost a different language from Latin prose that requires some practice to get used to.

Thanks. I kind of despaired when I saw that “hanc eadem ut sciret…” was not only absurdly simple, but was very neatly laid out in the line that I had messed up trying to (incorrectly) reconfigure the words. At times like this I can doubt my Latin abilities entirely, including in prose. But I’ve come way too far to give up so stopping is really out of the question; I can only hope to get better.

Thankfully confidence-testing days are usually followed by confidence-restoring ones. I’ve looked ahead to tomorrow’s reading and it (from first impressions, at least) seems simple enough. Also I looked inside the De Senectute book and read the first couple of paragraphs using the notes, and that edition seems to be aimed at a lower level than mine (I assume it includes macrons so students wouldn’t be confused by ambiguous forms; also the notes give away almost too much). Knowing that there is a lower level of intermediate study than mine is encouraging.

Only one slight problem with 45-55:

Huc ades, o formonse puer.

I take “huc ades” to mean “come hither”, with “ades” being some form of “adire”. It scans as two short syllables and I can’t find it in the conjugation of that verb, however. It seems to be second-person singular imperative or, failing that, a jussive subjunctive (or maybe a statement of fact, but that seems least likely), but the subjunctive would be “adeas” and the indicative is “adis”, the imperative “adi”. I’m at a loss how to explain this, especially with the short second syllable.

Ades is from adsum, which is used here as a verb of motion. As you thought, it’s imperative. “Come here.”

Lewis & Short adsum:

F Involving the idea of motion, to come, to appear (most freq. in post-Aug. prose): adsum atque advenio Acherunte, Enn. ap. Cic. Tusc. 1, 16, 37; jam ego hic adero, Plaut. Aul. 2, 3, 7; Ter. And. 4, 2, 32; id. Heaut. 3, 1, 96; id. Eun. 4, 7, 41: hi ex Africa jam adfuturi videntur, Cic. Att. 11, 15: Hymen ades o Hymenaee, Cat. 62, 5: Galli per dumos aderant, Verg. A. 8, 657; 11, 100: > huc ades, o formose puer, id. E. 2, 45; > 7, 9; Ov. M. 8, 598; 2, 513 (cf. also adesdum): ecce Arcas adest, appears, is arrived, id. ib. 2, 497; so 3, 102; 528; 4, 692; 5, 46; 8, 418; 9, 200, 304, 363, 760; 11, 349; 12, 341; 13, 73, 82, 662, 906: adfore tempus, quo, etc., id. ib. 1, 256; cum hostes adessent, i. e. appropinquarent, Liv. 2, 10: truci clamore aderant semisomnos in barbaros, Tac. A. 4, 25: infensi adesse et instare, Sall. J. 50: quod serius adfuisset, Suet. Aug. 94 al.—In App. with acc.: cubiculum adero, Met. 2, p. 119 Elm.: scopulum aderunt, ib. 5, p. 160.—

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1012.lewisandshort

Coleman cites two more examples from the Eclogues, which you might look at.

Huc ades, I think, suggests the invocation to a god in a prayer, requesting the god’s presence. This was a typical feature of ancient hymns and, especially, prayers (e.g. Sappho, Fragments 1 and 2), which usually follow a set pattern: invocation of the god with cult-names or geographical associations, list of previous benefactions and request for immediate help with something.

Thanks. Come to think of it I don’t remember ever learning an imperative for “esse” except for “esto(te)”. Is “es” it in general? For instance, “be nice”? Or is it, like the participle, found generally in compounds only?

Es is the singular imperative of esse. I can’t say I’ve seen it very often in uncompounded form, if ever. I can’t tell you offhand what the plural form is.

The following lines are such beautiful Latin poetry (almost overly so); then he says in self-disgust, Rusticus es Corydon, like haec incondita – the possibly comic tension between Corydon’s supposed persona as a rustic, unlettered shepherd and the elaborately wrought poetry of his song. Corydon is a standard figure of Latin erotic elegy (even though the meter here isn’t elegiac) – the exclusus amator, the poet/lover for whom access to the object of his affections is impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraklausithyron

But in the end (if you’ve reached it yet), as in Theocritus, song is the remedy of love.

Yeah, I read to the end today.56-59 gave me some difficulty:

Nec munera curat Alexis
nec, si muneribus certes, concedat Iollas.

(“Neither does Alexis care for gifts, nor does Iollas, if you were to fight for gifts, concede.” Is this right? Iollas is a dives amator – is this saying that Corydon’s gifts pale in comparison to what Iollas could give?)

Floribus Austrum
perditus et liquidis inmissi fontibus apros.

(This is a tricky one. I assume it means something like “I am ruined, as the south wind ruins the flowers, and as boars ruin the flowing springs.” “Inmissi” would seem to go with “apros” but it’s in the wrong case and I can’t otherwise find a place for it. Also how does the syntax of this sentence work? I get that “floribus” and “fontibus” are dative, taking the action of the (implied?) verb but where does the accusative come from?)

Towards the end of this poem my discipline started to break down and I read mostly for sense, with meter and the sound of the words fading into the background a bit. In any event I’m a bit burned out with poetry – though it’s certainly been interesting and a new experience, and I’ve learned a lot – so I’m going to take the customary two days off to rest my mind a bit for the fourth Catilinarian. I’ll try the third eclogue (and possibly more) once I’m done with that. I’ll read the second eclogue in its entirety when I get home this evening a time or three.

Nec munera curat Alexis
nec, si muneribus certes, concedat Iollas.

You understand this correctly: "Alexis doesn’t care for gifts, and Iollas wouldn’t give in [i.e., he would win] if you should [try to] contest [Iollas for Alexis’ affection] with gifts.

Floribus Austrum
perditus et liquidis inmissi fontibus apros.

What has confused you is that inmissi is the 1st pers. sing. perfect of inmitto, not the perfect participle.

I think here Coleman has carried his fondness for supposedly archaic spellings too far and created a form that doesn’t appear in any of the manuscripts. According to Geymonat’s edition [2008] of Vergil’s works, which carefully reports minor spelling variations in the apparatus at the foot of the page, one of the ancient mss., designated by the letter P (the “Palatine”) has inmisi; another (R, the “Roman”) immissi. (Both of these are now housed in the Vatican Library.) So Coleman’s reading isn’t supported by either–he has conflated the two readings to create a bastard form, to the confusion of students. Mynors’ Oxford text, which has normalized spellings, reads simply immisi, as does Geymonat in his text. (The first half or more of the Eclogues is missing from the third ancient ms., M, the “Medicean,” now in the Laurentian Library in Florence.)

The direct objects of immisi, connected by et, are Austrum and apros.

“Ruined, I have released the South Wind into the flowers [wilting and scattering them] and boars into clear [liquidos] springs [muddying them].”

See Lewis and Short, liquidus I B:

B Transf., clear, bright, transparent, limpid, pure: lumen, Lucr. 5, 281: fontes, Verg. E. 2, 59: ignis, id. ib. 6, 33: aër, id. G. 1, 404: aether, id. A. 7, 65; Hor. C. 2, 20, 2: Baiae, id. ib. 3, 4, 24: color, id. ib. 4, 8, 7: liquidior lux, Curt. 7, 11, 22: liquidissima caeli tempestas, Lucr. 4, 168: nox, Verg. A. 10, 272: aestas, id. G. 4, 59: iter, serene way (through the air), id. A. 5, 217.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.10:1322.lewisandshort

Es is the singular imperative of esse. I can’t say I’ve seen it very often in uncompounded form, if ever. I can’t tell you offhand what the plural form is.

In the Graculus et Pavo fable it appears in the last verse: es contentus natura tua. And the plural I`ve already seen it as este.

Best regards.