Would someone out there please help me by explaining the exact grammar operating here in these lines from the Calydonian Boar Hunt in the Metamorphoses:
(actually there’s two versions of the lines I found) Tarrant:
dixit et aerata torsit grave cuspide cornum; 408
quo bene librato votique potente futuro
obstitit aesculea frondosus ab arbore ramus. Anderson:
cui bene librato votoque potente futuro
obstitit abscisa frondosus ab arbore ramus.
I included line 408 (book eight) for context. I understand enough of it to get the sense:
(starting at 409): “(the spear) was well-balanced/thrown and about to be obtaining his wish, but a leafy branch from a winter-oak tree stood in its way”. Phrases that begin with “quo” give me trouble. Here, once I remembered that “obsto” is followed by the dative (compound verb), “cui” made more sense than “quo” except for “potente” which must be ablative, right? And the genitive of votum made sense because the dictionary has a definition “in possession of, having obtained + genit.” So I could almost get there by translating it as “a leafy branch from a winter-oak tree obstructed IT having been well-thrown and about to be obtaining his wish”. But the exact grammar of the version beginning with “quo” eludes me, as well as “potente” in the ablative, esp. if all these other words are dative (in the cui version).
I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide!
Here is my solution to the puzzle (which I hope is correct). The following words are all in the ablative and are part of an ablative absolute quo … librato … potente futuro . In the other version, the two following words are in the dative cui … librato and the other following words are in the ablative and form an ablative absolute votoque potente futuro
In the first version “quo” refers, of course, to “cornum”, but is in the ablative case since it is part of an ablative absolute.
In the second version, “cui” which refers, of course to “cornum”, is, as you mentioned, in the dative as the indirect object of the verb “obstitit”.
What you said there sounds compelling. It certainly looks like some ablative absolutes are at work. I thought about that for a long time.
What worries me are these statements about ablative absolutes from two of my Latin grammar books:
“the participle and the noun it modifies are in the same phrase and the noun of the ablative absolute phrase is not referred to at all in the attached clause” (Wheelock pg. 193)
“the construction must never be used if the person or thing involved is either the subject or object of the verb in the sentence” (Bradley’s Arnold Latin Prose Composition pg. 231)
Now maybe poetry is looser about this? Or perhaps it makes a difference that “obsto” takes the dative?
But it certainly seems like the final line about the tree branch requires some kind of object to be “obstructed” and if practically the entire previous line is an ablative absolute which is talking about that object, and if it must do the work of being some kind of object, then it doesn’t seem like it’s “absolute” (grammatically disconnected from the main clause).
In regards to the second version, “cui” is the indirect object of “obstitit” and “librato” agrees with “cui”, in other words “librato” is in the dative. The phrase “cui bene librato” is not part of the ablative absolute. The ablative absolute is “votoque potente futuro”. “Voto” is not the subject or object of the sentence, so I would think that the definitions of an ablative absolute that you quoted would not be contradicted. Anyway, that’s how it seems to me.
As far as the first version goes, here is an example of a ablative absolute from an ancient author “Quo facto”. This begins a sentence and refers back to what had been said in the previous sentence. So I think that “quo bene librato votique potente futuro” could be, the whole thing, an ablative absolute. And the fact that there are two versions might be a hint that the latin is a little bit strange sounding even to the experts that published the versions.
I was just about to post something quite similar to this. The “cui” version appears to be a textual emendation to me better to make sense of the text (since the quo version might be seen as lectio difficilior). Does anyone have the OCT of Ovid to check if there is a textual variant, or a commentary on the text which might discuss it?
Regarding what Plebeius said: last night I was hunting through other old grammars to try to find anything on the AA that could help and in George J. Adler’s reprinted grammar from the 1800s he says (pg. 452): “The noun entering into the construction of the AA always denotes a different person or object from those contained in the sentence; but pronouns sometimes constitute an exception to this rule.” He quotes a couple examples, here’s one: “Galliam Italiamque tentari se absente nolebat,” but unfortunately doesn’t give the source. But another old grammar, agrees there are exceptions and his example is from Cicero Philip., xi., 10, Nemo erit … qui credat te invito provinciam tibi esse decretam, “There was no one … who would believe that the province had been decreed to you against your will.”
Concerning this version of the line, “quo bene librato votique potente futuro”, which seems to be preferred, I was wondering if it would be considered too much to fix the problem with “obsto” requiring the dative to simply supply an “eī” right before “obstitit”? Being a neophyte to reading poetry, I see it is often “necessary” to supply words which are to be understood from the context but not explicitly expressed.
I don’t have the OCT, but Anderson has cui, the Loeb has quo, but no app. crit. there, as do the other 2 I have, with no comment on variation in any of the 3 with commentary.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see Ablative Absolutes (plus a lot of other stuff) in poetry “breaking the rules” set down by prose standards: 4 lines further along in the Metamorphoses passage I wrote about above I ran into this:
at manus Oenidae variat, missisque duabus
hasta prior terra, medio stetit altera tergo.
The things being “sent” are the very spears named explicitly in the latter half of the sentence. The annotated version I have says “missis duabus, sc. hastis, ablative absolute”.
Yes it’s just as you say, Ovid does not always “follow the rules.” (Nor does prose, for that matter.) But in this case the syntactical switch is entirely natural, and I don’t think anyone would blink at it. It marks a shift in focus from Meleager’s cast of his spears to its contrasting results. It goes without saying that the Latin has to be read in the order in which it comes (defying translation).
Our grammars tend to gloss over things like this, which seems to me a shame. It would be good you could post more such “aberrations” (so to speak) neglected in the grammars. They’re always revealing..
