Grammatical Assistance Request for Sallust - Bellum Iugurthinum

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello!

I recently had to do a grammatical analysis of a passage from Sallust’s Bellum Iugurthinum and it’s been over a week since I submitted my work and I am still waiting for my results. I am kind of dying over one particular section that I feel like I may have misunderstood/misinterpreted, so I am humbly asking for your help with the following:

“Sin captus pravis cupidinibus ad inertiam et voluptates corporis pessum datus est, perniciosa libidine paulisper usus, ubi per socordiam vires tempus ingenium diffluxere, naturae infirmitas accusatur…”

Would this be considered a mixed condition construction with a participial phrase and a temporal clause as subordinates within? Is “..perniciosa libidine paulisper usus” possibly a temporal clause as well due to the use of “paulisper” or…? Additionally, is this entire construction possibly in the historical present sequence of tenses? I thought perhaps because it seems to read "but if x….and when x and x has happened, then…” but it’s entirely possible I was at the end of my mental capacity because I did this as my last final. My apologies for the bombardment of questions but any help will be greatly appreciated. Even if I totally lost the plot with this one I have a long term goal of being able to read the Bellum Iugurthinum in its entirety so I’d like to be set straight sooner rather than later…

Thank you in advance for your time,
Kirsten

2

You’ve just about got it. One or two points to sharpen your thinking:

  • Why do you suggest historical present, rather than straightforward primary sequence?
  • perniciosa libidine paulisper usus: the presence of an adverb makes no difference to the construction, a participial phrase.
  • Are you construing the ubi clause with the if-clause or with the main clause? Your translation adds an “and”, which is not in the Latin. You have to decide what is subordinate to what.

Enjoy the war.

3
  • I guess I thought it was the historical sequence because of “datus est” being in the perfect passive indicative tense and “accusatur” being in the present passive but I see now that because it is indicative rather than subjunctive it would be considered the primary sequence rather than historical. My mistake. My understanding is that for a historical present sequence of tenses is that it would have a perfect tense main verb and a historical sequence subjunctive - is this correct or how do I identify this in the future?
  • I was just scrutinizing my work for potential mistakes, thankfully on my assignment I identified it as a participial phrase.
  • Whoops! I included the “and” because of “vires tempus ingenium” it wasn’t how my translation of that phrase began. My translation of this phrase was:

“But if the mind, captured by perverse desires and pleasures of the flesh, has been given up to the depths for laziness, used by destructive lust for a time, when strength, time, and innate talent have wasted away through indolence, the weakness of man’s nature is accused…” (if you have any critiques of this translation, I would love to hear them!)

Thank you so much for your help, I truly appreciate it.

Best regards,
Kirsten

4

“Sin captus pravis cupidinibus ad inertiam et voluptates corporis pessum datus est, perniciosa libidine paulisper usus, ubi per socordiam vires tempus ingenium diffluxere, naturae infirmitas accusatur…”

“But if the mind, captured by perverse desires and pleasures of the flesh, has been given up to the depths for laziness, used by destructive lust for a time, when strength, time, and innate talent have wasted away through indolence, the weakness of man’s nature is accused…” (if you have any critiques of this translation, I would love to hear them!)

I think you have to take " ad inertiam et voluptates corporis" with “pessum datus est”. “Sin captus pravis cupidinibus” is one thought and " ad inertiam et voluptates corporis" with “pessum datus est” is another. The mind captured by perverse desires is enslaved to idleness and pleasures of the body.

24 (w. vbs. of giving, surrendering, con-
demning, etc.) To, into the hands of. b (w.
vbs. of ascribing, attributing, etc.) to. c at-
tinere or pertinere ad. to be of concern to;
quod attinet, etc., ad, as far as concerns: see
ATTINEO, PERTINEO; (also w. other verbs of
sim. sense, or ellipt.); quantum ad, as far as . . .
is concerned.
in seruitutem pauperem - ditem dari TER.Ph.653 j UO.
luntas uostra si “'” poetam accesserit 29; ,…, praetores..
uinum honorarium dabant CATO orat.73; honos … patrem.
insia honoris,.." te delata sunt Clc.Sul.50; ab Sidicinis
deditio prius ,… Romanos coepta fieri est LIV .8.2.6; dis
pensatorem … bestias dedit PETR.45.8 ;-(10 a condition) ..…
inertiam. ,pessum datus est SAL.jug.I.4;So " but if [the mind] captured by crooked/perverse desires has been wholly given to idleness and the pleasures of the body."

I think this more accurately reflects the Latin. But as ever am ready to stand corrected.

5

Kirsten, You thought historic sequence because datus est is perfect tense. But that’s too simple. You rightly translated “has been given up …”. The “has been” indicates primary sequence. In Latin the perfect is sometimes primary (e.g. dedit meaning “he has given”), sometimes secondary (e.g. dedit meaning “he gave”). Greek distinguishes “he has given” (true perfect) from “he gave” (aorist); Latin doesn’t (using dedit for both), but it does observe the distinction in dependent clauses, which are in primary or secondary sequence accordingly. This might be something you can get your teacher to explain.

In querying your “and” I was referring not to the “and’ that you rightly introduced to the list of “vires tempus ingenium” but to the “and” that you introduced before the “ubi” clause itself. This makes an important difference to the construction, see my previous.

seneca2008 sets you straight on ad inertiam et voluptates corporis, a single phrase.

And lastly, usus is active, not passive! utor is a deponent (with ablative). This usage is very common. Literally “having used", but you need to come up with a suitable rendering in English.

6

@seneca2008, more accurately reflecting the Latin as it is written is one of my goals for next semester (as well as getting comfortable with reading a Latin sentence as it is written from left to right - no more jumping ahead for verbs…) so I appreciate that correction.

@mwh, your explanation of the historic sequence was great, thank you! The one provided in Wheelock does not mention that the perfect can be either primary or secondary, but it also mentions the historical present as kind of an afterthought and does not go into great detail. Also about the “and” - I was simply wrong, I apologize for my misunderstanding of your first explanation.

I knew this phrase must have been haunting me due to some pretty glaring errors. Thank you both so much for your help.