Hi, I could do with some help translating these few sentences from book 5 of Cicero’s de Finibus.
nam me ipsum huc modo venientem convertebat ad sese Coloneus ille locus, cuius Sophocles ob oculos versabatur […]
My problem is the “cuius … versabatur”
My try: For when I myself came here, Coloneus attracted my attention, that place in front of which Sophocles went about.
“ita enim se Athenis collocavit, ut sit paene unus ex Atticis, ut id etiam cognomen videatur habiturus.”
My try: For he moved to Athens that in this way he is the only person from the Atticus family, that he seems that he would live in his cognomen.
I don’t really like it, but I don’t know why. Perhaps I don’t like the two consecutive clauses with ut, and I don’t know whether one of them is subordinated the other or what.
I have a grammar question too. “Hoc autem tempore, etsi multa in omni parte Athenarum sunt in ipsis locis indicia summorum virorum, tamen ego illa moveor exhedra.”
In the “tamen ego illa moveor exhedra” clause, illa exhedra is ablative. But is it an instrumental ablative or an ablative of seperation? I suppose it could be both: an ablativus causae (instrumental) or an ablativus orignis (seperation)?
I’m really not sure about the cuius in the first sentence. Might it possibly be dependent on oculos, somehow metaphorically referring to sight? (On account of whose sight Sophocles lived)? But that’s not very likely, and I’m puzzled just as you are.
ita enim se Athenis collocavit, ut sit paene unus ex Atticis, ut id etiam cognomen videatur habiturus.
My try: For he moved to Athens that in this way he is the only person from the Atticus family, that he seems that he would live in his cognomen.
First off, it’s habiturus, not habitaturus - this may be complicating your translation. I’ll give it a shot:
For he has moved to Athens in order to be nearly one of the Greeks, and he’s done it so well that he seems to have Greek as his cognomen.
I think that Atticis hear refers to the Attic people and not to his family name. I could very well be wrong here! It’s definitely a tricky sentence. As to the clauses, it seems to me that the first is a purpose clause and the second is a result clause (depending on ita…collocavit).
I can’t answer your last question with much certainty. It seems to depend on what follows. Is he literally moving from the exhedra? If so, probably abl. of separation (ablativus originis! neat). If it means that he was “moved” emotionally, probably abl. of instrument (ablativus causae! - neat again, I didn’t know these terms).
Good luck - I hope someone else will fill the gaps in my knowledge and answer these questions thoroughly.
“For he has relocated/moved (past) himself in Athens in such a manner [ita] that he is (present) almost one of the Greeks, and it seems that he will (future) even have a Greek surname.”
nam me ipsum huc modo venientem convertebat ad sese Coloneus ille locus, cuius Sophocles ob oculos versabatur […]
From a quick glance at thelatinlibrary.com, I see that their text has “cuius incola Sophocles…” I don’t have a copy of that text with apparatus, and I haven’t read it before, so I don’t know if there is a textual question here or not. But with that reading, the meaning becomes more clear:
“that Colonean place whose inhabitant, Sophocles, turned before (my) eyes.”
I assume that this is describing some sort of trip to Athens? Well, Colonus is a place near Athens where Sophocles was born, and where, of course, he sets his play “Oedipus at Colonus” (which Quintus goes on to mention in this paragraph). So perhaps they are making a trip out to Colonus, and either an image of Sophocles “flashes before his eyes” or perhaps there was some sort of actual monument or gravestone they were visiting? As I say, I really don’t know.
Anyhow, my suspicion (again, without looking at an aparatus) would be that perhaps the text comes down to us as you quote it - “cuius Sophocles…” - and some editor has inserted ‘incola’ to help the passage make more sense? But it could be understood in the same sense without ‘incola’ (The Colonean spot, whose Sophocles…).
In the “tamen ego illa moveor exhedra” clause, illa exhedra is ablative. But is it an instrumental ablative or an ablative of seperation? I suppose it could be both: an ablativus causae (instrumental) or an ablativus orignis (seperation)?
Ablative of separation without preposition would be somewhat strange in prose, wouldn’t it? I agree that this is probably some member of the ‘instrumental ablative’ family: call it “ablative of cause” “ablative of means” or “ablative of instrument” or whatever, but the translation would be something like “Nevertheless, I am moved by that hall.”