one setence from Tacitus' Annales, help

Latin Learning Latin
1

In Ann. 1.5, Tacitus tells us a story about Augustus’ visit to the exiled Agrippa Postumus in Planasia:

quippe rumor incesserat, paucos ante menses Augustum, electis consciis et comite uno Fabio Maximo, Planasiam vectum ad visendum Agrippam …

This is my translation:

For the rumor had spread that a few months earlier, with knowledge of selected number and with only one accompany, Fabius Maximus, Augustus had sailed to Planasia to visit Agrippa…

Apparently, here Tacitus uses the indirect statement to describe the rumor: so the subject in the indirect statement is Augustum in the accusative case, without problem, but my question is about the verb “vectum”. Why does the historian here use vectum (esse, perfect passive infinitive) rather than “visisse” perfect active infinitive?! I just can’t figure it out… AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANY HELP!

2

Visisse doesn’t exist. Did you want venisse? Venisse and vectum esse are arguably synonymous, with vectum implying travel by some means of transportation other than by foot. Here I think it’s a so-called participium conjunctum, functioning as an adjective.

3

Many thanks for your kind help! I meant vexisse. Sorry for my mistake. I think perfect active infinitive of veho (vehere, vexi vectus) is vexisse? BTW, I dont know the grammar about participium conjunctum, which is not in my textbook.. Thank you very much for pointing out. I think I need to look up some other grammar books..

4

Vehere vexisse vectum is a transitive verb meaning “to take”. In Latin it often takes the sense, in the passive, of “travel by” –

Equo vectus :: by horse
Curru vectus :: by cart

So if the sentense had “vexisse” you would have to ask: To take what?

As it is, with the passive participle, it just means ‘taken [by some unnamed means if transportation]’. That’s why I said it was roughly synonimous with Venisse.

Participium conjunctum means a participle which is joined to the sentence without being a part (either as a passive or a deponent verb).

5

Here I don’t think vectum functions as an adjective. It’s the main verb of the indirect statement, perfect passive infinitive, with esse omitted, isn’t it?

Participium coniunctum is a term that seems to be used in German grammar books more than in Anglo-American ones. Apparently it refers to a participle that is used predicatively as an adjective. (Personally, I had never encountered the term in my 60 years of learning Latin until a few months ago on this site.) But here, as I mentioned earlier, I think that vectum is simply a (periphrastic) perfect passive infinitive without esse, which is omitted as often as not, especially in Tacitus’ brisk and condensed style.

Of course, vectum agrees with the subject of the indirect statement, Augustum, and in that sense functions like an adjective.

Here is the full sentence:

quippe rumor incesserat paucos ante mensis Augustum, electis consciis et comite uno Fabio Maximo, Planasiam vectum ad visendum Agrippam; multas illic utrimque lacrimas et signa caritatis spemque ex eo fore ut iuvenis penatibus avi redderetur: quod Maximum uxori Marciae aperuisse, illam Liviae.

6

Participium coniunctum is a participle that is used as an apposition. Conversely, I think that an apposition is particularly commonly a participle in Latin, more commonly than a noun or “normal” adjective.

In English (as in some other languages, as well) one has to use different constructions to translate participium coniunctum, particularly different subordinate clauses.

How would Anglo-Saxons, then, term this construction?

7

So we’re agreed that vectum in the Tacitus sentence is not a “participium coniunctum”?—since, as I would put it, it’s not functioning as a participle but as an infinitive (= vectum esse)—or, as Timothée would apparently put it, since it’s not a participle used as an apposition. I prefer my formulation, but I would, wouldn’t I? They both take cognizance of the syntax.

I’ve never seen the need for the term myself. It seems to be used only for Latin, not for Greek where it would make just as much sense if not more. The “coniunctum” seems to me to add little or nothing. If participles were used attributively in Latin, I suppose it might serve to distinguish predicative from attributive use. But even then “predicative” would seem a more useful term than “coniunctum,” if only because it’s not limited to participles. (Nouns used in apposition are not called nomina coniuncta, or are they?) Definition in terms of “apposition” has another drawback too. In a sentence of the form “morituri te salutamus,” for instance, what’s the participle in apposition to? (The “understood” subject implicit in the termination of salutamus, I guess. But is this any way to construct a terminological apparatus?)

The Germanic mania for latinization has even infiltrated American terminology. In one post here it took me a few moments to figure out what was meant by “Aci”.

Incidentally, achilles005, you might find it convenient to think of vehor as a deponent meaning “travel.” Cf. Catullus’ “multas per gentes et multa per aequora vectus | advenio …” [where vectus is used as an apposition, Timo would tell us].

8

Aci? Was heißt das? Ich habe keine Idee.

9

I still cling to it, imagining a comma after vectum and taking the implied verb as venisse; that was my original understanding of the sentence, checked by your and Hylander’s comments but which I still think is possible.

Concerning the terminology of participium conjunctum itself, while I’m certainly not wedded to it I must say I’ve found it useful to have a grammatical term to refer to it, although this is a circular reasoning, since having a term to refer to something means you’re more likely to use said term when the opportunity arrives. As to whether this specific (Latin) term is adequate I withhold judgement - so much of grammatical terminology is conservative that it doesn’t shock me that a specific term shouldn’t make a whole lot of sense in itself, since for me at this point it’d be akin to stop calling “cases” by that name, meaning possibly more accurate but not worth the hassle.

10

I hate to belabor this, but vectum here is simply the perfect passive infinitive, not an attributive or predicative participle. There is absolutely no warrant or need for supplying an understood venisse or any other verb of motion for the indirect statement. The only word that needs to be supplied is esse, and really, it doesn’t need to be supplied, because it’s obvious that vectum is a perfect passive infinitive even without esse.

In indirect statements with perfect passive infinitives (or “active” perfect infinitives of deponent verbs, and mwh’s suggestion to treat vehor as a deponent meaning simply “travel”, is a good one), esse is omitted as frequently as or maybe even more frequently than included, and this is very characteristic of Tacitus’ style, which, as I mentioned earlier, is brisk and condensed.

I wouldn’t contest the issue so vigorously if I weren’t concerned that anphph’s comment could be misleading, especially for someone trying to read Tacitus. I write that with respect for anphph, whose posts are usually right on target, and I hope I won’t offend anphph.

11

anphph, No, that really won’t wash. There’s no reason to postulate an “implied” verb venisse(?!) when we already have vectum (esse). It’s not “that after traveling to Planasia to visit Agrippa” but simply “… that he’d traveled to Planasia to visit Agrippa.” What’s wrong with that?
“case” is Latin “casus,” Greek πτῶσις, cf. “declension.” It’s standard Latin(<Greek) grammatical terminology, conservative certainly, but necessary. But participium coniunctum? What’s the point of it? Coniunctum as opposed to what? It’s a participle, for heaven’s sake. You can call it a participium if you like, just as you could call cases casus.

I may be gone for a few days, so please don’t read anything into my silence if I don’t write.

Hylander, search this site for aci and you’ll see.

Edit. This posted before seeing Hylander. anphph, believe us!

12

Thank you to both of you for the correction concerning vectum. I am persuaded.

I am aware of the etymology of case, but, mwh, as you recognize, the meaning of the word in most (all?) languages has drifted unrecognizably beyond the original sense of Greek πτῶσις or Latin casus. My point was that we do not update the meaning to reflect common usage and to have it make sense. I don’t really think I have anything left to add to this topic. I’ve found that having a specific term for this has been useful in didactic contexts. That being said, in light of this conversation I’ll start to pay more attention to the possibility that I’ve been fabricating a problem because I am in possession of a tool that can solve it.

I hope I won’t offend anphph.

I always read the posts that the two of you write here with much enjoyment and personal profit. I am learning Latin, and I learned a bit more today.

13

Thanks again for your further explanation! Now it’s clear. I also agree with Hylander’s view. I am inclined to see vectum as perfect infinitive too, but initially I just couldn’t get the point why Tacitus uses passive rather than active voice here! But if anphph’s answer is correct, which I believe so, then the problem is solved. Thank you all who got invovled with the discussion :slight_smile:

14

From Lewis & Short veho:

vĕho, xi, ctum, 3, v. a. and n.

—Pass., to be carried or borne, to ride, sail, go, etc.: mihi aequom’st dari … vehicla qui vehar, Plaut. Aul. 3, 5, 28: visus est in somnis curru quadrigarum vehi, Cic. Div. 2, 70, 144: vehi in essedo, id. Phil. 2, 24, 58: vectus curru, Vell. 2, 82, 4; Ov. M. 5, 360: vehi per urbem, Cic. Pis. 25, 60: in navibus vehi, id. N. D. 3, 37, 89: in navi, Plaut. Bacch. 1, 1, 73: navi, id. Am. 2, 2, 220: lintribus, Varr. L. L. 5, § 156 Müll.: puppe, Ov. H. 16, 113: parvā rate, id. M. 1, 319; cf. huc, Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 176: navem, ubi vectus fui, id. Mil. 2, 1, 40; id. Merc. 2, 3, 37; id. Stich. 4, 1, 25; id. Trin. 4, 3, 81: in equo, Cic. Div. 2, 68, 140: in niveis victor equis, Ov. F. 6, 724: nympha vehitur pisce, id. M. 2, 13.—Of other swift motions: ut animal sex motibus veheretur, Cic. Univ. 13: apes liquidum trans aethera vectae, Verg. A. 7, 65.—With acc.: ventis maria omnia vecti, Verg. A. 1, 524.—

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.20:281.lewisandshort

15

A few miscellanous points regarding mainly the terminology:

I’m no German, but I would have said (Ich habe) keine Ahnung. Not saying it’s wrong, but it does have a slightly English (American?) Klang to it (cf. “no idea”).

AcI is accusatiuus cum infinitiuo, let it be said clearly here, too. You’ll guess what PC is.

I don’t think I’ve given any reason to think that I define participles always, even negatively, via the appositional usage.

Terminology is sometimes just terminology. We don’t insist the word accusative to make any sense (as it of course doesn’t), so why would a more sensible term participium coniunctum have to be opposed for that reason? I don’t think that the reason that something is new is a good ground for opposition, either, although I do know that’s how we tend to react things new to us in general.

It will be the first person plural, as you strongly imply. Of course it’s perfectly common in many languages that the subject needn’t be explicit with the inflected verb. Two other examples for the sake of it (taken from grammar): Inuitus te offendi. Non dubitans id dico.

In my view this is exactly the way to construct a terminological apparatus. Structuralism works well in cases like this. (An example could be taken from the Czech language. It will have a so-called zero-auxiliary in the third person singular and plural of the past tense: they will only have the participle and not the auxiliary verb “to be” which is used in the 1st and 2nd persons. The structure of the language will suggest this analysis, as strange as it may sound. Thus e.g. Četl jsem knihu ‘I (masc.) read a book’ vs. Četl Ø knihu ‘He read a book’.)

16

We don’t insist the word accusative to make any sense (as it of course doesn’t), so why would a more sensible term participium coniunctum have to be opposed for that reason?

The objection to participium coniunctum is not that the term doesn’t make sense–it’s that it’s unnecessary and doesn’t add anything to our understanding of Latin. I managed to get by reading Latin for 60+ years without having heard this term. It just seems like Teutonic pendantry, especially in its pretentious Latinized garb.

17

Good-bye