Mike Seigel's Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax Ch. 20 Independent Uses of the Subjunctive

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello again everybody,

I have just reached the end of chapter 20 and have run up against the passage for translation at the end, which to my mind, has ramped the difficulty up considerably from the pure passage translation exercises of chapters 18 and 18. I post the text here as it is not available to preview on Google Books:

Exercise 20.4 THE DEFEAT OF CATILINE

confecto proelio tum vero videres quanta audacia quantaque vis animi fuisset in exercitu Catilinae. nam vix quisquam non eodem quem vivus ceperat loco cecidit, pauci autem, quos in medio positos cohors praetoria aggressa disiecerat, paulo longius sed omnes tamen adversis vulneribus conciderant. Catilina vero longe a suis inter hostium corpora repertus est, paulum etiam spirans, ferociamque animi quam habuerat vivus in vultu retinens. postremo ex omnibus copiis neque in proelio neque in fuga quisquam civis ingenuuscaptus est; tali discrimine omnes suae hostiumque vitae pepercerant. neque tamen exercitus populi Romani laetam aut incruentam victoriam reportaverat, nam strenuissimus quisque aut ceciderat in proelio aut graviter vulneratus discesserat.

SUPPLIED VOCABULARY
cohors praetoria - the general’s bodyguard
ingenuus - free-born
discrimen, -inis - struggle, fight
incruentus - bloodless
victoriam reporto - I win a victory


Now, here is what I have (very literal) thus far. It is the second sentence that is troubling me especially at present:

With the battle having been finished/completed, then indeed you would see [subjunctive in what Seigel calls potential/polite statements] how much daring and how much strength of mind there was in the army of Catiline. For scarcely anyone did not fall from that same place which the living man had captured, but/moreover a few men, whom having been placed in the middle had been scattered by the having-advanced general’s bodyguard, a little longer but everyone nevertheless with wounds having been turned toward[?] they had fallen.

Now this, it goes without saying is an unutterable mess, and breaks the rule ‘don’t write nonsense’. Carrying on:

Indeed Catiline was recovered at length by his men from among the bodies of the enemies, breathing a little yet, and the living man retaining the ferocity of mind which he had had, on his face. Afterwards out of all the troops neither in battle nor in flight was anyone having been captured a free citizen [I read captus here as a PPP in agreement with quisquam, and est as the copulative bridging quisquam and civis ingenuus]; by means of such a struggle everyone their own life and the life of the enemy had spared. [And] Nevertheless the army of the Roman people had not won either a happy bloodless victory, for each man had either slain very vigorously in the battle or having been gravely wounded had departed

Now, this is all so appalling that my plan is to sleep on it, and look at it afresh in the morning to see if anything clicks into place overnight - and I am tired today. But I wanted somewhere to leave this pile of dung so that, once I have looked again in the morning, I can begin articulating precisely what it is that I need help with.

So, my apologies for now.

Best wishes,

Jamie

EDIT - ferociamque for ‘forciamque’!

2

I know you’re going to sleep on it, but this probably reads ‘ferociamque animi’. (don’t translate animi). The selection is from Sallust’s Catilina, Chapter 61:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0123%3Achapter%3D61

adversis vulneribus = frontal wounds, i.e. they were wounded facing the enemy. If they had run, they would have had wounds in the back.

postremo ex omnibus copiis neque in proelio neque in fuga quisquam civis ingenuuscaptus est; tali discrimine omnes suae hostiumque vitae pepercerant.
I had to puzzle over this for awhile and I’m not sure if I’m right, but here is the sense:
Out of all who fought (ex omnibus copiis), no one was taken alive, either in battle or in flight; so did they spare their own lives and those of the enemy in the struggle. The idea being that they actually would not be sparing of their own lives in this battle, such was their dedication. Bear in mind this is the sense of it, not a literal translation.
I think the original is a little clearer:
Postremo ex omni copia neque in proelio neque in fuga quisquam civis ingenuus captus est: ita cuncti suae hostiumque vitae iuxta pepercerant.

3

I was also confused by that sentence. How can you say any lives were spared if no one was captured? I think turning ita in the original into tali discrimine renders the passage nonsensical. With ita you can read it as saying that no lives were actually spared, with tali discrimine this (to me) isn’t possible.

4

Right chaps, I must stress that this has just been written in Word without my having looked at anything posted below, so that I have not been influenced by solutions before I am ready. So forgive me for posting what I know to be error-strewn again. Sleeping on the text has definitely helped I think. When I was first having a go at translating it, I was taken back to horrific unseen tests at A-Level! I will read what people have posted and then the real work will begin

Exercise 20.4 THE DEFEAT OF CATILINE

confecto proelio tum vero videres quanta audacia quantaque vis animi fuisset in exercitu Catilinae. nam vix quisquam non eodem quem vivus ceperat loco cecidit, pauci autem, quos in medio positos cohors praetoria aggressa disiecerat, paulo longius sed omnes tamen adversis vulneribus conciderant. Catilina vero longe a suis inter hostium corpora repertus est, paulum etiam spirans, ferociamque animi quam habuerat vivus in vultu retinens. postremo ex omnibus copiis neque in proelio neque in fuga quisquam civis ingenuuscaptus est; tali discrimine omnes suae hostiumque vitae pepercerant. neque tamen exercitus populi Romani laetam aut incruentam victoriam reportaverat, nam strenuissimus quisque aut ceciderat in proelio aut graviter vulneratus discesserat.

SUPPLIED VOCABULARY
cohors praetoria - the general’s bodyguard
ingenuus - free-born
discrimen, -inis - struggle, fight
incruentus - bloodless
victoriam reporto - I win a victory

After the battle was finished [abl. abs.], then indeed you would see [subjunctive in what Seigel calls potential/polite statement] how much audacity and how much force of will was within Catiline’s army. For scarcely anyone did not fall at that same place [eodem…loco – abl. Of location?] which the living man [? – I believe this is Catiline, as he is referred to again I think as vivus later on, and in both cases I assume means something like ‘the man yet living’, telling us that when narrated, Catiline is already dead] had captured, moreover a few men, whom after they had been positioned in the middle the general’s bodyguard having attacked, had routed [perhaps would be nicer to translate this phrase as though passive?]. for a little longer [? Is ‘they stood’, ‘remained’, ‘fought on’ to be supplied/understood here, or am I missing something big?] but nevertheless all were slain with [abl. Instrument/means] facing-towards wounds [? – telling us none of Catiline’s army retreated - likewise they all fell ‘in that same place’, so none had abandoned their leader, showing the vis animi that we, reader, are told we would [have?] seen had we been there after the battle]. Indeed, Catiline at length was recovered by his men from among the bodies of the enemies [I assume that the author means that the suis and hostium are both the same force – they are only hostes from the author’s perspective? – or is the idea that Catiline had fallen taking many of his enemies with him?], and retaining on his face the ferocity of will which the living man had possessed. Finally, out of all the forces neither in battle nor in flight was anyone, once captured [PPP] a free-born citizen [i.e. all were taken into slavery once captured?]; by means of such a struggle all had spared their own life and the life of the enemies. And yet the army of the Roman people had not won a happy or bloodless victory, for each very vigorous man had either fall in battle or had departed, gravely wounded.

Edit - added the Latin so people don’t have to keep scrolling

Best,

Jamie

5

Hello Aetos,

Thank you for taking the time to have a read and reply. As you will see below, I did translate animi I’m afraid! Why would you omit it out of interest? I can see that ‘ferocity’ and ‘ferocity of will/spirit/mind’ are in essence the same thing, so that you can omit it, but why would you deem it necessary?

Yes this sentence - as did much else, gave me real trouble yesterday. Having yet another pass at it right now, I would translate it:

Finally, from among all the/his forces neither in battle nor in flight was anyone captured a free citizen; by means of such a struggle/fight they all had spared their own life and that of their [?] enemies.

Is tali discrimine not an abl. of means here do you think? (I know you weren’t giving a literal translation).

I read the Sallust as:

Finally out of all his force neither in battle nor in flight was anyone taken a free citizen; in this way the whole had nearly spared their own life and that of their enemies.

In both Sallust’s original and Seigel’s adaptation, why is civis ingenuus nominative? Can captus est take a complementary nominative here? ‘anyone was captured [as a/was a] free citizen’, or am I missing something obvious?

Praepositus, thank you for stopping by again. I leave you both (and others!) with my newer rendering to see what you make of it. It is very workmanlike at present, but I am keen to know a) if I am analyzing the grammar throughout correctly, even where literal translation renders things awkward in English b) I have got the sense of the passage.

Edit - I had forgotten that I am also keen to know what sort of ablative eodem…loco is - an Ablative of Location or is this Ablative of Place from Where - i.e. none fell away from that same place which the living man had seized/captured, that is to say, none fell in flight? But then the later neque in proelio neque in fuga suggests that some had fled?

Best,

Jamie

6

Hi Jamie,
I usually do my “heavy reading” between 1100 GMT and 1700 GMT (it takes about that long for my eyes to start burning.), so it’s now 1050GMT, so I don’t have a lot of time, but let me sort this first one for you. The genitives animi and rerum are qualifying genitives used to define the extent of the nouns with which they’re used. This is due to Latin tending to more concrete expression. English doesn’t require this, so no need to translate it. Other examples are ‘rerum natura’ = nature, the universe, ‘convenientia rerum’ =complete harmony, ‘animi dolor’=grief.

civis ingenuus is the subject of the sentence. quisquam is being used as an adjective (neque quisquam….civis ingenuus= and not any freeborn citizen).
As to this sentence, I agree with Praepositus. It’s very difficult to make any good sense out of it. The basic idea of this sentence is that they were so unsparing of their lives (and the lives of the enemy), that no free citizen was captured either in the battle or in flight. It was a fight to the death for both sides.

7

You have the sense of the passage more or less. A few comments:

  1. nam vix quisquam non eodem quem vivus ceperat loco cecidit

vivus here means “when alive.” So, hardly anyone fell in a different spot from the one he had taken up at the beginning.

  1. pauci autem, quos in medio positos cohors praetoria aggressa disiecerat, paulo longius

A few, however, who had been posted in the middle and whom the general’s bodyguard had dislodged, had fallen somewhat farther off – longius is spatial, not temporal. (Not everyone died on the same spot.)

  1. Catilina vero longe a suis inter hostium corpora repertus est

Catiline was found far from his own men – not by is own men – among the bodies of his enemies.

  1. neque in proelio neque in fuga quisquam civis ingenuus captus est

quisquam civis ingenuus must mean “any freeborn citizen.” No freeborn citizen had been captured, either in battle or in flight.

  1. I think eodem loco is an ablative of place where. This may be useful: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/allen-greenough/Chapters/Chapter-429.html
8

Praepositus, Aetos,

Thank you again for all your help with this - it has been extremely useful. Forgive the tardiness of my reply - as I am sure it has been for many users here, work the past few days has been rather more manic and difficult than usual, leaving little time for Latin. But I have got several hours in this morning, and will be posting new threads for new problems I’m afraid!

Aetos, may I ask what your ‘heavy reading’ 11am-5pm is? It sounds intriguing!

At any rate, back to the Sallust adaptation in hand; it is sad to see how many basic errors I had still made Praepositus, although I am gladdened that sleeping on it did allow me to make more sense of the passage. Another question for either of you, or somebody else - is tali discrimine here an ablative of means? ‘By means of such a struggle/fight, they had spared their own life and that of their enemies’.

For me, the real problem with Seigel’s adaptation of Sallust’s original is the removal of iuxta - as I (a very amateur Latinist) see it, this causes more of a problem than the removal of ita?

This is what I am left with, Aetos and Praepositus’ corrections in place. This is again very literal, to try and demonstrate my understanding of the grammar of the Latin:

After the battle was finished, you might then indeed see how much audacity and strength/force had been within Catiline’s army. For scarcely anyone did not fall in the same place which he had taken up when alive; however a few men, whom positioned in the middle the general’s bodyguard, having attacked, had routed, had fallen a little further off, yet all by [fell by means of] frontal wounds. Indeed, Catiline was found far from his own men, amidst the bodies of his enemies, as yet breathing a little, retaining on his face the ferocity which he had possessed when alive. Finally, out of all the forces, neither in battle nor in flight was any free-born citizen captured; through a struggle of such a kind, they had spared their own life and that of their enemies. Nevertheless, the army of the Roman people had not won a happy or bloodless victory, for each very vigorous man had either fallen in battle or had departed, gravely wounded.

Best wishes, and thank you both again,

Jamie

9

I think this is one of those sentences where it is impossible to render literally the constructions being used. In order for the sentence to make proper sense, either the negative has to be carried over to the second half of the sentence, or one must add an appropriate adverb (such as ita) with pepercerant to convey the scope of sacrifice that Sallust is trying to portray. This by the way, is a nice example of style- rather than simply and plainly writing ‘non pepercerant’, he writes ‘ita…pepercerant’, thereby adding a sense of irony. Again, Sallust’s point is that the fact there were no prisoners demonstrates how little thought the soldiers on both sides gave to saving their own lives.

I’m taking a little break to answer this-by “heavy reading” I mean the reading I do during this time is devoted to long-term projects, on which I spend roughly an hour a day, every day (I can do this because I’m retired!). Currently those projects are: Xenophon’s Anabasis, Homer’s Iliad (just started Book 24), Virgil’s Aeneid (Book 11), Seneca’s Thyestes (Act III). Every other day, I read Selections from Livy and for bedtime and pure fun- Apuleius (2nd time)!

10

Hi Aetos,

I hope that you had a good weekend - thank you for taking the time out to answer me. That sounds an Elysian way to spend one’s time (answering the TextKit questions of a neophyte, less so I’d venture!). I see. Well, I think that this is as far as this piece of synthetic Latin can be pressed into service. I thank you both again for your help.

Best wishes,

Jamie