Mike Seigel's Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax Ch. 19 Ex. 19.2 The Death of Cato

Latin Learning Latin
1

Good morning,

I am afraid I am here to again ask of your help, this time with another translation exercise from Mike Seigel’s Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax, this time Ex. 19.2 The Death of Cato:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6P52u9J-RYkC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=latin+a+clear+guide+to+syntax+the+death+of+cato&source=bl&ots=RKLHLAsRTh&sig=ACfU3U3Ge1c8ckERIQj1cm-vxPTj0_doIg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0t-7au57oAhWYiFwKHTYhDkwQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=latin%20a%20clear%20guide%20to%20syntax%20the%20death%20of%20cato&f=false

The sentence troubling me is the following:

cum autem perterritos pugnare nolle intellexisset, amplius de hac re agere destitit navesque eis attribuit ut quo vellent profiscerentur.

I make it thus far:

But when he had understood that the terrified men did not want to fight, he ceased to further lead the defence [lit. he left off from the further conduct of this affair] and gave them ships whither they might willingly depart.

I am quite confident of my translation save for the final ut clause. I read this as a consecutive clause (a.k.a. a result/final clause depending upon one’s preference) giving the reason/purpose for which Cato ‘abstuit’ the ‘naves’ to ‘eis’. Now, this would be fine but I am a little thrown to find two imperfect subjunctive active verbs here - I am used to seeing volo + infinitive, but that is not what we have here. I also read ‘quo’ as the adverb ‘whither, to where’ - I cannot see an antecedent in the nom. m/n. sg, and thus take it to mean that they would go to the ships in order to leave.

As you can see, I have translated this almost as though it were volo + an infinitive, literally word by word:

so that/in order that/to to where they willingly they depart/set out

As previously, any help given would be taken as both generous, and hugely helpful.

Best wishes,

Jamie

2

Why are you translating vellent as an adverb?

3

Hello again Praepositus,

Because I cannot make sense in English without adapting volo adverbially or without translating proficiscerentur as though it were part of a volo+infinitive construction (so that whither they might be willing to depart):

I get, literally if I wish to translate both verbs as verbs in a consecutive clause - so that whither they might want (to) they might set out.

Can you help me with this? I don’t think I have seen an ut clause before that contains two verbs that are both in the subjunctive. Am I right to read this as a consecutive/result/final clause? Is quo here the adverb ‘to where, whither’ do you think? I am stumped.

Best wishes,

Jamie

4

You are translating quo correctly as whither. But this is a purpose clause, not a result clause. You are getting thrown off by the fact that there is more than one verb in the subjunctive after ut, but one of them is subordinate to the other (in other words, there is another subordinate clause within the ut clause). Your last translation, with both verbs translated as verbs, is very close. Think about it…

5

Hello again Praepositus,

You are of course right - that Cato gave them a ship _in order to/that they might_do something.

in order that they might set forth whither [perhaps wheresoever?] they might wish (?)

This makes much better sense to me English, but is the result of simply playing with the order of the words in English, rather than the fruit of a better analysis of the grammar (save that I now know one verb is to be subordinated to the other).

Is there a way of telling here which of the two verbs is subordinate to the other? Could you point me to an explanation of this in a grammar somewhere? I have physical copies of James Morwood’s Latin Grammar, Kennedy’s, as well as Milena Minkova’s Introduction to Latin Prose Composition, Morwood and Ashdowne’s Writing Latin, and Bradley’s Arnold. But if you do not use these, please point me wheresoever :smiley: you wish!

Thank you again - I hope I am closer this time.

Jamie

6

I dont think there is a rule here although the word order in Latin gives a clue:

ut quo vellent profiscerentur.

so that wherever they wished they might set off. Its clear from the Latin that the main verb is prŏfĭciscor because that describes the main action so the other verb must be subordinate.

7

Hi again Seneca,

Thank you for your help - okay, I will try to bear this in mind. I’ll try to keep an eye out (whilst I remember) for any similar clauses elsewhere. A cursory google search has yielded no rule, as you say.

I am sorry to ask more of people’s time, but I just wanted to check what people thought of how I have tacked the last couple of action-packed, and complex (to my long unpracticed eyes) sentences:

Cato ipse, omnibus rebus diligentissime constitutis, cum dormitum abiisset, gladium in cubiculum secum intulit ut ita se traiceret. qui cum iam moriturus humum cecidisset, medicus quidam una cum amicis impetus in cubiculum facto vulnus obligare coepit. ipse autem suis manibus divellit atque aequo animo sic mortuus est

Cato himself, [ablative absolute] after all these things had been most carefully decided, [temporal cum w/ past tense subjunctive + supone purpose w/verb of motion] when he had gone away to sleep, carried a sword with him into his bedchamber [purpose clause] in order to stab himself thus. [Connecting relative] When this man [temporal cum w/ past tense subjunctive] had fallen to the ground [fut. act. participle about to] on the point of death, a certain doctor together [una adverb] with his friends, [abl. abs.] after charging into the bedchamber, began to bind the wound. But Cato himself tore away at [historic present] (the bindings implied? Seigel supplies divello as I tear away) and, with thus with a calm mind, passed away.

I am sure I have made a plethora of mistakes, but I am particularly concerned by ‘medicus quidam una cum amicis impetu in cubiculum facto vulnus obligare coepit.’

Now, am I right in seeing impetu…facto as an ablative absolute, una as an adverb? Literally I might translate this:

‘…a certain doctor together with the friends, with a charge having been made into the bedchamber, began to bind the wound.’

Any help would be much appreciated - and I thank Praepositus and Seneca again for the generous efforts they have already made to help me get back to reading real Latin!

Best wishes,

Jamie

8

Back for a moment to “ut quo vellent profiscerentur.” The word order gives more than a clue, it gives the answer. The ut comes directly before the quo. That makes it higher in the syntactical hierarchy. So the quo clause (quo vellent, “wherever they wanted”), sandwiched as it is between ut and profiscerentur, is subordinate to the ut clause that encloses it.
—Think of a box. “ut profiscerentur” is the box. “quo vellent” is an item put into it. The word order is typically Latin

Now for the rest. You’ve got it all pretty well.
qui cum: don’t translate as “When this man” but as “And when he” (“And” optional).
You typed impetus for impetu.
suis manibus with his own hands (intensifying ipse).
divellit will not be meant as historic present but as perfect, like mortuus est.

9

Hi mwh,

Whilst mid-bracketing of my translation above, I managed to completely miss out typing suis manibus! Thank you for your clear explication - a good reminder to use everything at your disposal, word order very much included, to help you arrive at a meaning. The idea of a ‘box’ is very helpful indeed.

I thought that rather than continuing to clutter up the forum, I’d just keep using this thread for the next issue I have had with a passage in Seigel, Ex. 19.5 the story of Mucius Scaevola.

I actually found this passage much easier than the previous couple, despite Seigel’s statement that the passages in this (and the last chapter) are put in order of difficulty. The passage can be found below:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6P52u9J-RYkC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=seigel+mucius+scaevola+latin+a+clear+guide+to+syntax&source=bl&ots=RKLHMAxQPe&sig=ACfU3U29r9BOGNYeuILaglDrLVq-v4OGmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9-ayqwqHoAhVylFwKHcWwCSEQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=seigel%20mucius%20scaevola%20latin%20a%20clear%20guide%20to%20syntax&f=false

Now, all is well until I reach the following sentence:

Porsenna tantam fortitudinem ita miratus est ut Mucium ex igne quam primum trahi iusserit.

Not if I analyse this I get this:

Porsenna [subject] was amazed at such great fortitude/bravery, such that [with the result that] he ordered that [a subordinate indirect command?] Mucius be dragged [present passive infinitive] out of the fire…

Now, quam primum is where I run into real uncertainty - I see this as quam + adv., thus ‘as X as possible’, with primum meaning ‘at first, firstly, in the first instance’. Now, the sense I assume - if my analysis of the grammar is correct - is that Porsenna ordered that Mucius (or his hand at least) be pulled from the fire as quickly as possible. But I don’t think this gets across the sense of primum (if I have it right) very well.

Praepositus, seneca2008, mwh - thank you again. If any of you, or anybody else is able to offer help with this, it would be immensely appreciated. I realise that such gratitude can seem cloying, but I don’t want it thought that I am simply happy to take help offered without a thought for the effort imparted by my adiutor/magister or perhaps better, σωτήρ!

Thanks again,

Jamie

Edit

I have also a question about one section of the next passage, Ex. 19.6 on Leonidas’ last stand at Thermopylae. The clause:

cum diu et acriter pugnatum esset

I think this is best interpreted as a concessive clause, but I see that it could also be a temporal clause or causal - but I feel that the latter certainly doesn’t work here. I also would like to know if I am right in thinking that the subject of pugnatum esset is the impetum of the prior sentence. Thoughts as ever, appreciated.

Jamie

10

Quam primum = “as soon as possible” here more idiomatically “as quickly as possible.”

cum diu et acriter pugnatum esset

The precise sense of cum must be derived from context. Which of those options you listed makes the best sense? No, impetum wouldn’t be the subject. This is an impersonal usage, fairly common, “it was fought for a long time and bitterly” = “They fought long and bitterly” or “It was a long and bitter fight.”

11

Hi Barry,

Thanks for replying. As I suspected then with quam primum, which is reassuring!

I think I would still plump, as in my last post, for a concessive clause as the most sensical here, but do you think that that is wrong? May I ask what you would go with - and whilst it might be belabouring the point - and how you would come to the decision?

Thanks again,

Jamie

12

It would have been helpful to have included the whole sentence “cum diu et acriter pugnatum esset, Lacedaemonii omnes ad unum occisi sunt.”

How could this be causal or temporal? As Barry says there is no magic formula which will help here just sense. So “although it was a long and bitter fight the Spartans were all killed to a man.” Despite putting up a brave fight all the Spartans were slaughtered. Its seems difficult to see how this could be temporal or causal.

You might see tamen in the main clause of a concessive sentence as Morewood suggests p 123. Gildersleeve makes the point that there is a temporal notion at work in a concessive clause “whether the times are for or against an action is a matter outside language” a bit opaque but I quote it for what’s its worth. If you have Woodcock you can read about how “the use of cum in concessive and causal clauses are really branches of the generic or descriptive use”. p 192. Woodcock A new Latin Syntax is worth reading if you have time and want to develop your understanding.

Can you post a separate thread for each passage? Dont worry about cluttering anything up. It makes it easier for everyone to follow what’s going on. Long threads aren’t very helpful to other readers.

13

Good morning Seneca,

My apologies - I shall start new threads from now on. Thank you for the heads-up. The rest of the sentence was available at the link, but I suppose I was just being lazy - given that I was asking for help, I apologise for this also.

It just so happens that I ordered a copy of Woodcock yesterday, so I will be sure to have a look.

How could this be causal or temporal?

You are of course right, and this is what I had thought; given how recent my return to Latin is, I wondered if I was missing some ‘rule’ that would mean I could be sure of which use I was looking at. Basically, whilst I was sure that in terms of sense a concessive cum made the most sense, I was perishingly aware of how likely it was that I was going wrong for some reason.

As ever, I greatly appreciate the help you and everyone else in this thread has given, but I’ll call this a capstone and open a new one for the next difficulty (not far away I’d judge!). I hope you all have good days, and that you and yours are safe out there.

Best,

Jamie

14

Jamie

There is no need to apologise.

The questions you ask are very sensible and I would encourage you to carry on. We all learn (I hope) from our mistakes. We all make mistakes at least I know I do! MWH is often around to make sure that we dont go too far wrong.

Please keep posting the links to the text as well as quoting the lines you are querying as its useful to see the context. These links may not work in the future but if you quote the whole sentence in your post it will remain useful to others in the future.

15

You are very kind (as have others been, already, to a very demanding new member). I had not given a thought to the fact that the links may well one day die. I will be sure in future to type out my texts.

Jamie