Horace, Sat. II, 2

[hlawson38]

Context: The wise man, even if rich, lives simply, because it is heathful, and because it makes him better prepared for adverse fortune.

Horace, Sat., II, about line 110.

uterne
ad casus dubios fidet sibi certius? hic qui
pluribus adsuerit mentem corpusque superbum;
an qui contentus parvo metuensque futuri
in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello?

Translation:
Which one will have surer confidence in himself in dangerous times? The man who
accustomed his proud mind and body to abundance
Or, the man, content with little, and thinking of the future,
In peacetime, like the wise man, made suitable-arrangements [idonea] for war?

Some grammar calls:
idonea: accusative, neuter, plural; an adjective with substantive force; suitable things, suitable arrangements. Although I’m having a little trouble scanning this line, surely the last two feet must be like this:

donea bello
_ uu _ _

Hence, ablative is ruled out for idonea.

fidet: future, indicative, active; this sets up the primary sequence for sequence of tenses.

adsuerit, aptarit: both perfect, subjunctive, active. These lines resemble a conditional sentence in the form of a question between two alternatives. “Which man will be readier for hard times, the one who would live high in good times, or the one who would live thriftily in good times, while setting needful things aside for bad times.” The need for the subjunctive seems clear from the logic of the passage, but I’m not sure which grammar rule in Allen and Greenough to cite.

[Hylander]

adsuerit, aptarit: future perfect indicative, indicating that these actions will have been completed before future fidet occurs. I think you may be confusing these with a contrary to fact condition (not the case here), which would require pluperfect subjunctive.

Otherwise your analysis, including scansion, is correct.

[hlawson38]

@Hylander

adsuerit, aptarit: future perfect indicative, indicating that these actions will have been completed before future fidet occurs. I think you may be confusing these with a contrary to fact condition (not the case here), which would require pluperfect subjunctive.

Otherwise your analysis, including scansion, is correct.

Thanks Hylander. I went astray because I somehow decided the subjunctive must be involved, and by brute force devised an erroneous rationale for the subjunctive. As I review this train wreck, I see that Latin questions are a weak point for me. I’m reviewing Morwood right now.

[mwh]

Your problem wasn’t so much the fact that this is a question. You just have to get used to Latin’s use of future perfect.

(You left out “who” in the second part.)

Well spotted about idonea.
The line goes: in pac(e) ut sapiens: this takes us to the 3rd-foot caesura, ———uu—. Then apTArit iDOnea BELlo, ——uu—uu——, with stress on the longum (aka princeps) of all three last feet, giving a markedly closing cadence for the sentence.

[hlawson38]

@mwh

Your problem wasn’t so much the fact that this is a question. You just have to get used to Latin’s use of future perfect.

(You left out “who” in the second part.)

Well spotted about idonea.
The line goes: in pac(e) ut sapiens: this takes us to the 3rd-foot caesura, ———uu—. Then apTArit iDOnea BELlo, ——uu—uu——, with stress on the longum (aka princeps) of all three last feet, giving a markedly closing cadence for the sentence.

Getting used to Latin future perfect: that too!

Leaving out the second “who”: Got it; my carelessness.

Horace’s metrics: I’ll have to study your scan, because my scanning is still slow, laborious.

Many thanks mwh.