Rebilius Cruso: things that puzzle me

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello everybody,

As I did with Winnie ille Pu, I started reading thoroughly Rebilius Cruso, and obviously, there are little things here and there I don’t totally understand. So if you don’t mind explaining, I’d be very grateful for any help. There will probably be many questions, but I’ll gather all of them here, so that it makes less topics, and in case there are other readers of this book, they may experience the same problems as me and so they will easily find some answers.

Tandem, vadōsiōre marī, flūctūs perniciōsius circumfringī et dējectārī scapha.

I don’t understand the construction of this sentence. What does perniciōsius come with? Is it an adverb? If that’s the case, it isn’t mentioned in the original version. And how do the verbs work here? With nominative scapha and infinitive passive verbs, I’d expect flūctibus (but a conjugated verb would still be missing), with an ablative absolute at the beginning.

Any hint?

2

It would be helpful if you posted also what Defoe wrote.

3

The problem is that it isn’t a translation, but a full rewriting. So there is no version other than Latin. Otherwise, I may have found the answer by myself.

If we had “flūctibus”, the sentence may look correct (with the infinitives, the use of which I don’t totally master at this point).

4

These just look like historical infinitives to me, but more context would be nice, as Bedwere says. The use of the historical infinitive should render the narration/action more vivid in the reader’s mind.

5

Fluctus could be nom. pl. and the subject of circumfringi, meaning the waves are breaking/crashing all around. I don’t know if that makes sense in the context.

6

This does make sense if we consider the verbs use historical infinitive, notion that I just started discovering.

Thanks a lot!

7

I tracked down the original to see if it shed any light. There the only vowel length marking is fluctūs, about which the author says in the introduction, “Nay I write fluctûs for gen. sing., fluctūs for plural, but fluctus for nomin. sing.”

Ventus, ad terram propellens, cursum scaphae accelerabat, terram faciebat formidolosiorem; metu autem maris, spe littoris, ipsi nosmet quasi in certissimum exitium detrudebamus. Tandem, vadosiore mari, fluctūs perniciosius circumfringi et dejectari scapha. Mox, ecce crista undae ingens, quae nos persequitur; et vix Dei effamur nomen, quum cuncti sumus absorpti.

The English that he is very loosely retelling is the following, I believe:

…But there was nothing like this appeared; but as we made nearer and nearer the shore, the land looked more frightful than the sea.

After we had rowed, or rather driven about a league and a half, as we reckoned it, a raging wave, mountain-like, came rolling astern of us, and plainly bade us expect the coup de grâce. It took us with such a fury, that it overset the boat at once; and separating us as well from the boat as from one another, gave us no time to say, “O God!” for we were all swallowed up in a moment.

What does “dejectari” mean here? I would have guessed that the scapha might be ablative, and it means “to be hurled from the raft”, with the subject an unexpressed nos.

perniciosius might be an error for perniciosos.

8

Yes, so it may be nom or acc plural.

It was so much rewritten that I don’t feel so much advanced with the original. It just sounds like any shipwreck.

The author usually marks the 1st decl ablative (he marks every potential ambiguous vowel), so it isn’t my default option, and how could it come along with flūctūs?

If that were to be the case, that would mean flūctūs is accusative. And I don’t see by which verb it would be introduced.

9

Ah, I see now. I thought this historical infinitive would be like infinitives in Herodotus, governed by accusative. But it’s nominative in Latin, I see. So perniciosi with the final “-us” being the typo. I think that you must be right about scapha, looking through the book, and though the verb still seems a bit strange to me anyway, I guess that I can understand dejectari as “hurled down [below]” or similar.

10

Perniciosius is a comparative adverb..

11

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you.

12

“scapha” is nominative and the subject of “deiectari”, the “et” introduces a new clause.

13

Thanks A LOT for helping me sorting this out.

The analysis of the sentence gives this:

Tandem, (vadōsiōre marī) [abl abs], (flūctūs [nom pl] perniciōsius [comp adv] circumfringī [hist inf]) et (dējectārī [hist inf] scapha [nom sg])

That was difficult!

——————————————

Now I have another question:

Frāter proximus, sīcut ego quoque posteā, incertum quōmodo, ēvānuit.

I have trouble understanding the incertum quōmodo part. I do understand the general meaning, but not the grammar. Can you guys help me on this one?

14

I think it can be understood as a sort of abbreviated version of “incertum (est) quomodo (evanuerit)” - “(it is) uncertain/not clear how (he disappeared)”.

15

re circumfringi

How to find a meaning for this word?

16

Clever! This definitely make sense, thanks!

In “A large dictionary. In three parts” by Francis Holyoake (1677), I see it translated as “to break about”. But it’s quite old and the meaning seems to have changed from what I see in modern definitions.

17

I have a new mystery to solve:

Exūtīs pallā bracchiīsque, intrepidē mare ingressus sum

What do bracchiīs mean here? He removes his coat and his arms? I couldn’t find any alternative meaning for bracchium that could fit.

18

My guess is that this should be brācīs, meaning trousers or breeches. See OLD s.v. bracae.

19

One more time, you unstuck me and I can go on. Many thanks to you!