Iam matura virô (Roma Æterna: XXXVII:15-17)

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hi,

I am right now up to chapter XXXVIII of LLPSI II but Ι’ve written down something yesterday from ch. XXXVII about which I am not very sure. I mean, I know what is intended to say but I’d like any more qualified opinion to contrast what I think of it.

“Fauno mortuo, Latinus, filius eius, regnum accepit. Huius filius in primâ iuventute periit; sola in regiâ erat filia, nomine Lavinia, iam matura virô.” (lines 15-17)

(Excuse if my English translation is not accurate enough. I write also my Spanish rendering, if it helps.)

“After Faunus’ decease [lit. & roughly, Having died Faunus], his son Latinus acquired the royal power. His son died in his first youth and there was only a daughter in his Kingdom [regia: I understand it as the Palace where kings do live and the royal power itself], whose name was Lavinia and she was mature to marry a man.”

“Tras la muerte de Fauno, Latino, hijo suyo [lit. de él], tomó el poder del reinado. Su hijo murió en la primera juventud [sc. antes de los treinta, pues la juventud es hasta tal edad]; en su Reino tenía una sola hija, por nombre Lavinia [o Laviña], ya madura para ser casada con un hombre.”

The trouble which I came across was “iam matura virô”. I suppose that virô (from vir, man in dative singular) is used here (maybe with ellipsis of the verb) to make us know that she was destined to marry a man (Turnus, I guess) because she was a middle-aged woman or at least not very young but there´s not any verb which suggests it (nubere, nupsisse, for instance). I think that I understand it but I’m not sure and I would appreciate any thought.

Regards,
Gonzalo

2

The adjective with the dative, “maturus/-a alicui (rei)” means “ripe, mature (i.e. ready) for someone/-thing”. So “matura” should not be taken as if she is middle-aged, but only that she is not a little girl anymore. That she is not overtly old is further indicated by "iam ", meaning that she is “already” or “recently” old enough “for a man” (i.e. to be married).

3

Thanks, and then maturus, -a, -um with dative is another thing… so it was roughly as I supposed. It makes sense. Many thanks for the clarification.

4

This is a paraphrase of Aeneid VII, 50-53:

Filius huic fato divum prolesque virilis
nulla fuit, primaque oriens erepta iuventa est.
Sola domum et tantas servabat filia sedes
iam matura viro, iam plenis nubilis annis.

5

Gonzalo,

No verb is necessary. Matura viro = madura para (tener) hombre. :wink:

6

Hi,

Thanks Towpsyn and Amadeus.

I know it’s a paraphrasis from Æneid because it’s said at the beginning of the chapter (versibus solutis) but thanks anyway to show me the original paragraph and the care paid.

Amadeus, I thought there was necessary such a verb because it did not make sense to me without a verb unless I suppose the verb “to marry”; but the Grammarian Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas (predecessor of Chomskian and Rationalist Grammar) studied very well this grammatical phænomenon known like ellpsis and anyway it’s as you’ve stated. I give you the address to a bilingual edition of his Grammar, whose name is Minerva seu de causis Linguæ Latinæ. I’ve quoted him in other chance and now, that I’ve read him deeply I think that sometimes it’s a copia falsæ eruditionis, often without real erudition because he quotes and quotes classical authors without sense… Here it’s the chapter dedicated to ellipsis http://iessapostol.juntaextremadura.net/latin/minerva/ellipsi.html .

If you leaf through his Grammar, you’ll find truly interesting his theory on Greek case system. http://iessapostol.juntaextremadura.net/latin/minerva/

Here they are his full works edited by the excellent Gregorio de Mayans y Síscar http://books.google.com/books?id=H9PHgX3dRy4C&dq=inauthor:s�nchez+inauthor:de+inauthor:las+inauthor:brozas&as_brr=1 . He was also a great commentator of Garcilaso’s and Herreras’ poetical works.

By the way, Amadeus, have you finished LLPSI II yet?

Regards,
Gonzalo

7

Iterum salve,

Yeah, I finished Lingua Latina II some months ago. Very, very challenging toward the end. I think I might give it a second read, but it’s sooo long. :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks for the links. When I first came upon that sentence I think I knew what it meant almost immediately, even without a verb, I just imagined the woman being the object :exclamation: and the man the indirect object.

8

When I came it across in a first time I didn’t know by which reason was “virô” located but as I was writing the post I realized the pure material sense of the expression. She was mature to (be possessed by) a man. As you´ve said, “madura para tener hombre” , but in the contrary, “mature to be possessed by a man”. I was surprised by this expression and because of this I asked.

Nice to know you´ve finished Roma Æterna. Congratulations. I worked very hard through Familia Romana and with all I needed a second -more relaxed- lecture. Now I am at the third chapter of Roma Æterna and I am again working as hard as I am able. I read every section of every chapter twice or even three times to acquire and assimilate vocabulary &c. and it works fine. Then I copy the exercises in a separate piece of paper and I response to the questions vivâ voce -trying to answer as long as I can. Do you have any other suggestion or advice to give me when working through Roma Æterna to make the best use of it?

9

Yup, you guys got it: “already old enough for a man.” Probably 13, 14 years old, per the older custom.

10

I like the way Mr O starts the tale with what’s happening in Italy, using a snippet from Aeneid Book 7 as a dramatic anticipation of what’s to come: beautiful Lavinia, hopeful suitor Turnus (born loser?). “Meanwhile? (in good comic-strip style) “back in Wooden Horse territory, on the far side of the Lake", Aeneas’ flashbacked adventures unfold (Aeneid Book 2).

On the other hand, Mr O skips the Aeneas-Turnus showdown at journey’s end. Instead he switches from Vergil to Livy, who has Aeneas marry Lavinia, sire a second Ascanius, and get himself buried after a battle (no word of Turnus’ fate). Of course, Vergil himself died before he had time to deal with the nuptials, but he did allow Aeneas to finish off his rival in the closing line of the poem.

Closer to the original point of Gonzalo’s thread, I notice Livy has this (LL2 page 87, under Alba condita):

Nondum maturus imperio Ascanius, Aeneae filius, erat. (ripe for ruling?)

But I have a case problem of my own in connection with the immediately preceding Livy-based sentence:

Proelium deinde Latînîs prosperum factum est, quod Aenêae etiam ultimum opus mortâle fuit, nam post proelium nusquam appâruit.

(In Livy’s original: Secundum inde proelium Latinis, Aeneae etiam ultimum operum mortalium fuit.)

I take ‘Aeneae’ to be genitive. But could it also be dative?

I ask because I found this translation of the Livy:

Thereupon a battle was fought, in which victory rested with the Latins, but for Aeneas it was even the last of his acts on earth.

Cheers,
Int

11

Hi, Interaxus,

Very nice commentary. I am two chapters far from Livy. Don’t tell me the end!

In your question I think it’s opus esse + dative but I am not wholly sure. At least, It makes sense to me.
Aenêae etiam ultimum opus[…]
It’s a construction by means of we mean that it was a duty given to Æneas.

So, I’d say for Aeneas it was the last of his duties on the earth.

Regards,
Gonzalo

12

It could be either genitive or dative of possession, since it is not possible to tell from the form.

13

Are we agreed that “Latînîs? in Mr O’s “Proelium deinde Latînîs prosperum factum est? must be dative (‘a battle then was made/took place successful to/for the Latins’)?

In the next part of the sentence - “quod Aenêae etiam ultimum opus mortâle fuit? - Aeneae might be either gen. or dat. just as Twpsyn says (‘which was also the last mortal act/deed/duty of Aeneas // which for Aeneas was his last mortal act/deed/duty’).

BUT if “Latinis? in Livy’s “Secundum inde proelium Latinis (fuit)? is dative (‘after that there was a battle favourable to/for the Latins’), then I think we have a clue to the solution.

Since Livy uses only ONE VERB for BOTH CLAUSES, it seems highly likely that Aeneas too is meant to be dative, if only for reasons of symmetry and balance.

‘FOR the Latins the battle was favourable, but FOR Aeneas it was his last act’.

Case closed…? Or is that just my usual hubris? :cry:

Cheers,
Int

14

Hi, Interaxus,

I agree you. Anyway, as the aim of Oerberg’s method is reading Latin without thinking too much of the cases and “reading from left to right”(i.e. not seeking for verbs, subjects, &c.), it wouldn’t be necessary to know if it’s dative or genitive because it makes sense to us in the two ways (dative/genitive). So, there’s no problem. Æneas, therefore, isn’t genitive nor dative. He is an hero -closer to Odysseus than to Achilles. :stuck_out_tongue: Case closed, I guess.

Regards,
Gonzalo

15

Gonzalo: I agree with you 99% per cent.

But, oh, these cold cases! Just like toothache, won’t stop nagging…

So later on, down in the Underworld, Aeneas is swapping heroic tales with his famous role model and contemporary, Odysseus. He’s chatting about that last battle. Might we hear him say either of the following?

“Proelium illud Latinis secundum fuit, mihi autem ultimum operum mortalium fuit?

Or

“Proelium illud Latinis secundum fuit, meum autem ultimum operum mortalium fuit?

This last one reminds me faintly of Horace 1.11:

Ut melius, quicquid erit, pati,
seu plures hiemes, seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,
quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare.

(Bennett translation: How much better to endure whatever comes, whether Jupiter allots us added winters or whether this is last [‘ultimam hiemum’ or ‘ultimam hiemem’?], which now wears out the Tuscam sea upon the barrier of the cliffs!)

Whatever. I get the message… :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Int