I have been making my way through the excellent refresher course that is Mike Seigel’s ‘Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax’ - I went through it once before, before my illness, preparatory to a Medieval Latin exam, and found it useful then. I have been making my way through it again the past two weeks, and have reached Ch. 18 - the first of two chapters of practice readings before syntax coverage resumes. I have just ‘completed’ the first reading on Phocion of Athens:
I wanted to ask peoples’ opinions on a couple of matters:
Would people agree that the cum clause in the first line is concessive?
That omnibus in the first line is an ablative of comparison - ‘he was considered (to be) stronger and braver than all (men)’?
The main sticking point for me - what is the Nom. Masc. Sg. ipse doing in the phrase ‘si pecunia non gaudes ipse’? I can make sense of everything else in the passage save for this. The only thing I can think of is it being a typo for the abl. fem. sg. ipsa, agreeing with pecunia.
The very literal translation I came up with, leaving out ipse runs:
‘‘If you do not rejoice in (abl. of means/instrument) money’ they exclaimed, ‘nevertheless you love, so we believe, your sons and wife; if you are a good father and spouse, for their sake you ought not to reject the king’s gifts.’ Phocion is said to have replied ‘This counsel pleases nobody. For they are the same things to me. Surely they will not desire those riches of yours? Go quickly. I forbid you to speak of riches amongst us.’’
Any help on what I appreciate, as with my first post, will seem very basic to many here, would be much appreciated. I have no tutor to turn to anymore for help, so to have found Textkit is brilliant - wish I’d come across it during my master’s.
Hi, Jamie. I agree with your interpretation in point 1 and 2. As for 3, ipse puts emphasis on the subject. You could translate it as you yourself. It contrasts Phochion with the members of his family.
Thank you for this. I think this may be because this is the first time I have seen a nominative ipse, a, ipsud accompany a second person verb, so it threw me. I would have just expected a ‘tu’ here. Thank you!
Do you agree that pecunia is here an ablative of means, or am I mistaken?
And it’s not over yet. Bedwere explained ipse (which can accompany a verb in any person), but you seem to have missed the final point of the story. Not “For they are the same things to me” (similes isn’t neuter!) but “for they (i.e. my sons and my wife) are like me” (so if I see fit to refuse such gifts myself/ipse, they’ll approve of that).
Thank you. The sense I had made of it was that to be a good husband/father AND to refuse the gifts were to Phocion one and the same - i.e. to refuse the gifts was to be a good father/husband, which made sense to me given Phocion’s insistence on frugality.
Also, I did some digging and it may be of interest that ipsud is attested in Medieval Latin when ipse, a, um seems to have been assimilated to iste, a, istud!
It’s been a long day.