It would appear that I need to add “animus” to my difficult-words list: it seems that whenever I translate it I translate it wrongly.
It shouldn’t be a question of translating it correctly or not, but rather of being sensitive to the full semantic range of this word. I don’t think your translation, “mind”, was necessarily wrong, in any case. Sometimes it pays to look a word up in Lewis & Short for a good English equivalent when translating. I do this quite frequently. But the ultimate goal, of course, is to read without translating. Then, if you need to translate, you do so by rethinking the entire sentence or passage in English, rather than by assigning English words to Latin words.
Ablative of description: is this like “vir clarissimo patre”? If so it’s one of the less obvious uses of the ablative that I’ll have to keep in mind.
Yes, exactly. But again you need to internalize and assimilate this usage–to get beyond the need to identify it as you read.
One of the good things about art is that it can be separated from the artist; this is probably less true of orations and political commentary but for a few pages at least we can imagine him as defender of the republic.
Speeches in Latin, and even more so in Greek, are an art form that can be appreciated as such. In engaging with rhetoric, it’s helpful to be able to both experience them sympathetically, and at the same time, critically. In contrast to mwh, who has expressed himself on this topic previously, I happen to enjoy Cicero’s prose style (but that’s a very personal taste). From a political/historical point of view, I think he was a very ambiguous person–in an environment where everyone else was unambiguously ruthlessly rapacious. In the end, he paid for his courage with his life, though it’s difficult to understand why he hated M. Antony more than the other figures jostling for power after the death of J. Caesar.
Yes: I can actually read a good bit of Latin without translating, but for the more difficult parts I have to break it down, think about ablative uses, look words up, etc. It was exhilirating at first to be able to read French without translating (at the time I thought it was the coolest thing in the world); I haven’t studied it in ten years but I can still read a good bit of French liner notes and it’s still fun (perhaps “fun” isn’t the right word but you get the point).
One question that I’ve had: are these speeches extemporaneous and transcribed by stenographers, or did he write it beforehand? I had assumed the latter until Cicero pointed out that the Senators around Catiline had moved away. If so that’s an amazing skill.
One question that I’ve had: are these speeches extemporaneous and transcribed by stenographers, or did he write it beforehand? I had assumed the latter until Cicero pointed out that the Senators around Catiline had moved away. If so that’s an amazing skill.
Cicero’s speeches were probably published some years after they were delivered; the extent to which they were revised for publication is controversial, but I think you can assume that there was some touching up before they were released to the public. Whether that went so far as to alter the content in light of subsequent events or to heighten the drama, no one knows, but personally I wouldn’t be surprised if the speeches were substantially altered after the fact. Although I believe stenography was practiced in ancient Rome, Cicero’s speeches are certainly not the product of stenography–you have the version that Cicero wanted you to read.
I read 31-33 this morning and… I actually, as far as I know, had no trouble with it. I’ll take the weekend off and then start on the second oration, which will be a new thread.
Thanks so much for your help and other enlightenment about the speech, the man, and the times.
Ed: actually there is one word I’m not sure about:
Ut saepe homines aegri morbo gravi, cum aestu febrique iacantur…
(“As often men sick with a grave illness, when with heat and fever they are thrown(?)” And “febris” is an i-stem, hence the ablative “febri”?)
Hi,
The beginning of this “In Catalinam 1.22” says: “Quamquam quid loquor?”
I would translate it as: “And yet what am I saying?”
I saw another translation: “Although why am I speaking?”
My question concerns “quid”. Is it “what” or “why”?
Thank you.
Literally, of course, it’s “Although what do I speak?” (Note loquor not dico.) But it’s followed by what looks like a series of purpose clauses framed as elliptical rhetorical questions: “[Do I speak] in order that something may bend you?” etc. Only it’s not “something” but “anything” (ulla res), which is more exclamatory than interrogative, and still more rhetorical, as if to say “To think that anything at all might bend you!—Why, the very idea is absurd!” The suggestion is that nothing he says will ever sway him: Catiline is incorrigible. It’s very interesting as an exemplary piece of rhetoric.
Incidentally, it’s not Cataline but Catiline—a common student error and forgivable if you lived in Southern California in sight of Catalina.