Epitomē Historiae Sacrae, 113 (in quā esset)

Latin Learning Latin
1

Salvēte, sodālēs!

In that chapter, the following reads:

Accidit ut exercitus trajiceret silvam, in quā esset plūrimum mellis agrestis.

Why is the subjuctive esset used instead of the indicative erat? It certainly is not hortatory, nor optative, nor deliberative, and the honey indeed was there and the writter does not deny nor doubt about that, so not potential. I thought it could be because “trajiceret” is also in the subjunctive, that being because “accidit ut” takes that mood, but I am unsure.

Valēte!

2

Yes it’s because it’s an extension of the ut traiceret clause, just as you thought. The initial Accidit controls the construction.

3

So if it were “Exercitus trajicit silvam” instead of “Accidit ut exercitus trajiceret silvam”, it would be “in qua erat plurimum mellis” instead of “in qua esset”?

4

Well, your trajicit is present tense, so in qua est would be more likely than in qua erat. Or did you mean trajecit?

5

Yes, I meant trajecit. Thanks for the help!

6

Then yes it would be “in qua erat” if it’s a simple statement of fact (“in which there was the most wild honey”). But it could be subjunctive, “in qua esset,” which could mean “since there was most wild honey there” (giving the reason for their crossing the wood).

7

Thank you again!

123