# Epitomē Historiae Sacrae, 113 (in quā esset)

**URL:** <https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221>\
**Category:** Learning Latin\
**Created:** [July 17, 2026, 2:34pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221 "2026-07-17T14:34:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/u/IoannesSanctaeMariae)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2026, 2:34pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221/1 "2026-07-17T14:34:07Z")

</div>

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!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2026, 3:56pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221/2 "2026-07-17T15:56:29Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/u/IoannesSanctaeMariae)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2026, 12:24am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221/3 "2026-07-19T00:24:49Z")

</div>

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”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2026, 4:46pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221/4 "2026-07-19T16:46:52Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/u/IoannesSanctaeMariae)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2026, 10:43pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221/5 "2026-07-20T22:43:45Z")

</div>

Yes, I meant trajecit. Thanks for the help!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2026, 12:56am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221/6 "2026-07-21T00:56:39Z")

</div>

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).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@IoannesSanctaeMariae](https://www.textkit.com/u/IoannesSanctaeMariae)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2026, 10:56pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/epitome-historiae-sacrae-113-in-qua-esset/31221/7 "2026-07-21T22:56:20Z")

</div>

Thank you again!

123